^ 

(d 

! 

•^ 

a. 

5 

'^ 

1> 
-o 
J5 

**^            ^ 

Q. 

^t^ 

'S:)       ^ 

O 

1 

Ci 

> 

1 

•»-^ 

> 

1 

^          !zi 

c 

. 

;           } 

^           O 

^ 

o 

^ 

o 

3 

^ 

^        Iz; 

5 
rl 

:?        1 

':;^       p^ 

P4 

1 

o 

_^ 

^\ 

^         i 

v^ 

<u 

^^         ' 

*-• 
c 

0) 

e      ! 

1 

CL 

4^ 

•  ••■'jj 

:::)L^ 

U 

/^; 

-Md 

•4 


^% 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/debateontrineimmOOquin 


A.   J3EBATE 


TPJJNE  IMMERSION, 


THE 


LORD'S    SUPPER, 


AND 


FEET-^W^^SHIISra ; 


y  BETWEEN 

ELDER  JAMES  QUINTER,  OF  OHIO  {German  Baptist), 

AND 

ELDER  N.  A.  M'CONXELL,  OF  IOWA  {Disciple); 

HELD    AT 

DR  Y   C  R  E  E  K,    L  I  N  N     COUNTY,    IOWA, 

From  the  i4th  to  the  18th  of  October,  1867. 


REPORTED      BY 

J.   L.   M'CREERY,    OF   DUBUQUE,  IOWA. 


PUBLISHED  FOR  THE  COMMITTEK 

By    H.    S.    bos  worth 
CINCINNATI. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1868,  by 

W.  L.  WINTER  and  JOHN  A.  BUECHLY, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for 
the  Southern  District  of  Ohio. 


PREFACE.     ^^.    "1- 


The  circumstances  which  led  to  this  discussion  are,  perhaps, 
euflioiently  set  forth  in  the  opening  speeches  of  the  disputants. 

It  was  held  at  the  Dry  Creek  Meeting-house,  five  miles  north- 
west of  Marion,  Linn  county,  Iowa:  commencing  Monday, 
October  14,  and  ending  Friday,  October  18,  1867. 

The  disputants,  being  strangers,  had  their  first  interview  on 
the  morniTig  of  the  said  14th  of  October,  at  the  residence  of 
Thomas  Snyder,  when  the  following  preliminaries  were  agreed 
upon,  to-wit: — First.  To  discuss  the  following  propositions: 

Prop.  I.    Trine  immersion  is  essential  to  Christian  baptism. 
Elder  Quinter  affirms,  and  McConnell  denies. 

Prop.  II.  The  Bread  and  Wine  commanded  to  be  taken  by 
the  Disciples  of  Christ,  in  remembrance  of  him,  are  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

Elder  McConnell  afiirras,  and  Quinter  denies. 

Prop.  III.  The  Washing  of  Feet  is  an  Ordinance  established 
by  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  him  commanded  to  be  observed  by  all 
the  saints,  in  the  public  assembly  of  his  church,  until  his 
coming. 

Elder  Quinter  affirms,  and  McConnell  denies. 

And  to  adopt  as  rules  of  decorum  those  found  in  Hedges' 
Logic — viz: 

1.  The  terms  in  which  the  question  in  debate  is  expressed, 
and  the  point  at  issue,  should  be  clearly  defined,  so  that  there 
can  be  no  misunderstanding  respecting  them. 

2.  The  parties  should  mutually  consider  each  other  as  stand- 
ing on  a  footing  of  equality  in  respect  to  the  subject  matter  in 
debate.     Each  should  regard  the  other  as  possessing  equal  tal- 

(iii) 


// 


IV  PREFACE. 

ents,  knowledge,  and  desire  for  truth  with  himself;  and  con- 
sider it  possible  that  he  may  himself  be  in  the  wrong,  and  his 
opponent  be  in  the  right. 

3.  All  expressions  which  are  unmeaning,  or  Avithout  effect 
in  regard  to  the  subject  in  debate,  should  be  strictly  avoided, 

4.  Personal  reflections  on  an  adversary  should  in  no  instance 
be  indulged  in. 

5.  The  consequences  of  any  doctrine  are  not  to  be  charged 
on  him  who  maintains  them,  unless  he  expressly  avows  them. 

6.  As  truth,  and  not  victory,  is  the  professed  object  of  con- 
troversy, whatever  proofs  may  be  advanced  on  either  side, 
should  be  examined  with  fairness  and  candor;  and  any  attempt 
to  defeat  an  adversary,  by  arts  of  sophistry,  or  to  lessen  the 
force  of  his  argument  by  wit,  caviling,  or  ridicule,  is  a  viola- 
tion of  the  rules  of  honorable  debate. 

It  was  also  agreed  that  they  occupy  four  hours  per  day, 
speaking  alternately,  half  an  hour  each,  and  that,  on  the  final 
negative,  no  new  matter  should  be  introduced.  And  that  the 
Brethren  of  both  parties  pay  an  equal  share  of  the  expense 
of  reporting  and  preparing  the  manuscript  for  publication,  and 
that  they  joint.ly  secure  the  copyright,  and  dispose  of  the  same, 
or  make  such  other  arrangements  in  reference  to  it,  as  might  be 
subsequently  agreed  upon. 

A  Board  of  Moderators  was  chosen,  as  follows :  Elder  Mc- 
Connell  selected  H.  H.  Wilson,  of  Marshalltown,  Iowa;  Elder 
Quinter  selected  Samuel  Garber,  of  Illinois;  and  they  selected 
Elder  W.  H.  Brinkerhoff,  of  Marion,  Iowa,  as  President. 

By  a  subsequent  agreement  the  speakers  occupied  only  fifteen 
minutes  each,  in  the  closing  speeches  on  the  first  and  third 
propositions. 

Prop.  I.  Containing  sixteen  half-hour,  and  two  quarter-hour 
speeches. 

Prop.  II.    Containing  eight  halfhour  speeches. 

Prop.  III.  Containing  twelve  lialf-hour,  and  two  quarter- 
hour  speeches. 

The  discussion  was  listened  to  by  a  large,  intelligent,  and 


PREFACE.  V 

attentive  audience.  The  spirit  manifested,  by  both  speakers 
and  audience,  was  adniiiable  in  every  respect.  The  truth,  in- 
stead of  victory^  seemed  to  be  the  object  and  aim  of  all  con- 
cerned. 

A  phonographic  report  was  taken  down  at  the  time,  which 
was  subsequently  written  out  and  submitted  to  the  disputants 
for  correction  of  verbal  and  grammatical  errors.  Hence,  the 
present  printed  report  is  an  authenticated  transcript  of  facts 
and  arguments  presented  by  the  parties  while  discussing  the 
several  que.-^tions. 

At  the  close  of  the  last  speech,  the  President  Moderator 
made  a  few  brief  remarks,  concluding  as  follows: 

"We  can  not  conclude  without  thanking  the  congregation, 
in  behalf  of  our  brother  Moderators  and  selC  for  the  good  dec- 
orum they  have  manifested;  their  close  attention  to  the  thoughts 
presented  by  the  disputants;  thus  rendering  our  duties  easy, 
and  our  burdens  light.  We  humbly  pray  that  God's  richest 
blessing  may  rest  upon  you  all. 

"  And  to  you,  brethren,  as  affirmants  and  respondents,  you 
have  our  warmest  thanks  for  the  good  spirit  you  have  mani- 
fested: always  acting  with  Christian  courtesy  toward  each 
other;  and,  although  you  had  laws  to  govern  you,  we  have  had 
no  occasion  to  enforce  them.  We  shall  look  back  upon  the 
days  spent  in  listening  to  your  arguments,  jt?ro  and  con,  as  one 
of  the  bright  spots  in  our  experience;  and  may  God  in  his  prov- 
idence ever  let  his  blessed  spirit  abide  with  you.     Amen. 

"W.  II.  BRINKERHOFF." 

During  the  discussion  the  Disciples  selected  W.  L.  Winter, 
of  Marion,  Iowa,  and  the  German  Baptist  brethren  selected 
John  A.  Buechly,  of  Waterloo,  Iowa,  to  act  as  a  joint  com- 
mittee to  procure  and  supervise  the  publication  and  distribution 
of  the  same. 

And  in  pursuance  of  arrangements  consummated  by  them, 
this  work  is  now  presented  to  the  public,  and  dedicated  to  the 
anxious  inquirer  after  the  Truth. 

May  God,  in  his  infinite  mercy ,^  make  it,  and.  all  our  humble 


VI  PREFACE. 

efforts,  instrumental  in  the  furtherance  of  the  cause  of  truth 
and  righteousness,  and  the  advancement  of  his  Kingdom  on 
the  earth. 

W.  L.  WINTER, 

JOHN  A.  BUECHLY, 

Publishing  Committee. 


DEBATE  ^^^  V^ 

TRINE    IMMERSION.    | 

PROPOSITION  I.  ""' 

TRINE    IMMERSION    IS    ESSENTIAL   TO   CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


[MR.  QUINTER'S  FIRST  ADDRESS.] 

Friendly  Moderators — As  I  am  the  affirmant  on 
the  first  proposition,  it  devolves  upon  me  to  open  the 
discussion.  I  do  it  with  mingled  feelings.  I  am  sorry 
there  seems  to  be  a  necessity  that  my  worthy  friend 
and  myself  must  appear  before  you  in  the  relation  to 
each  other  that  we  do.  Both  of  us  profess  to  be  min- 
isters of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  I  would  much  rather 
that  we  could  be  heartily  united  in  the  great  work  in 
which  we  both  seem  to  be  interested — in  promoting  the 
glorious  cause  of  our  blessed  Master — than  to  thus  ap- 
pear in  opposition  to  each  other.  But,  though  the 
occasion  seems  to  demand  that,  for  the  present,  we 
should  thus  appear,  and  though  the  difference  in  sen- 
timent between  us  I  regret,  we  will  not  look  upon  each 
other  as  personal  enemies  ;  we  shall  not,  I  hope  and 
trust,  allow  any  improper  feelings  to  arise  in  our 
minds  toward  each  other. 

The  origin  of  this  discussion  I  will  simply  allude  to, 
by  saying  that  I  was  not  the  instigator  of  it.  I  do  not 
wish  to  throw  the  responsibility  on  any  particular  one ; 
but  I  wish  to  relieve  myself  of  it.  I  am  not  fond  of 
controversy,  and  only  engage  in  it  when  duty  seems 
to  require  it.  And,  though  I  have  spoken  of  the  re- 
grets I  feel  in  relation  to  the  position  that  my  friend 

7 


8  DEBATE    ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

and  myself  must  assume  toward  each  other,  yet  I  am 
ghxd  that  we  are  permitted  to  meet  together,  to  exam- 
ine and  discuss  our  differences  of  opinion,  and  to  try, 
if  possible,  to  lessen  them.  I  am  glad  we  have  free 
access  to  the  Scriptures  of  divine  truth;  lam  glad 
that  my  worthy  opponent  and  brother  receives  them 
as  his  only  correct  guide,  and  standard  of  ultimate 
appeal;  and  that  we  are  permitted  to  examine  and  in- 
vestigate them  as  to  what  is  actually  taught  therein. 
In  the  prosecution  of  this  discussion,  our  only  aim 
shall  be,  to  discover  the  truth;  our  endeavor  shall  be 
to  enlighten,  to  entertain,  and  to  profit  those  who  shall 
listen.  I  hope  you  will  give  the  matters  under  con- 
sideration more  than  attention  and  a  hearing  —  will 
give  them  an  earnest  attention,  and  a  prayerful  hear- 
ing. Whatever  the  result  may  be  as  regards  the  con- 
viction of  any  mind,  or  a  change  of  sentiment  in  any, 
I  hope,  when  it  is  concluded,  we  may  all  feel  that  it 
has  been  a  profitable  season,  and  that  your  souls  will 
be  refreshed  by  the  truth  we  shall  present  to  you  from 
time  to  time. 

In  entering  upon  the  discussion  of  the  proposition 
before  us,  it  is  proper  that  I  should  make  a  brief  ex- 
planation of  the  terms  used  therein.  "Trine  Immer- 
sion :"  this  phrase  implies  both  a  plurality  and  a  unity 
of  idea.  The  words  tri^  trine,  triune,  are  of  similar 
import;  each  mean  three;  but  in  the  proposition  as 
read,  the  word  tri7ie  is  used.  Trine  implies  plurality 
of  idea  ;  while  immersion  implies  unity  of  idea.  "  Trine 
immersion,"  then,  implies  both  plurality  and  unity  of 
idea.  In  short,  we  believe  that  three  immersions  con- 
stitute the  one  Christian  baptism.  I  believe  this  to 
be  taught  in  the  formula  of  Christian  baptism  pre- 
scribed by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  words  of  the 
great  commission  that  he  gave  to  his  disciples,  as  re- 
corded in  the  19th  verse  of  the  28th  chapter  of  the 
Gospel,  as  written  by  Matthew  :     "  Go  ye,  therefore, 


MR.    QUINTER  S    FIRST    ADDRESS.  9 

and  fcach  all  nntionp,  baptizing  them  in  the  nnmo  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  tlie  Holy  Spirit." 
In  sustaining  my  position — the  affirmative  of  the 
proposition — I  shall  pursue  the  course  that  is  com- 
nioiily  pursued  b}^  us  immersionists,  in  our  controver- 
sies ^vith  the  pedobaptists.  I  remark  this  at  the  com- 
mencement, in  order  that  you  may  be  prepared  some- 
what to  appreciate  the  propriety  and  consistency  of 
the  course  I  shall  pursue,  as  I  hope  it  shall  be  ibund 
that  there  are  consistency  and  propriety  in  it.  And  it 
seems  to  me  that  arf]i;uments  Avhich  we  all  a<];ree  in  re- 
garding  as  weighty  and  insuperable,  when  used  by 
immersionists  in  their  controversies  with  pedobaptists, 
should  be  recognized  as  equally  proper  to  introduce, 
and  powerful  to  convince,  when  brought  to  bear  in  a 
question  between  two  immersionists  as  to  the  mode 
of  immersion. 

I.  3Iy  first  argument  will  he  founded  on  the  eomid- 
eration  that  the  ivord  baptizo,  as  defined  hy  lexicogra- 
phers^ and  as  classed  hy  grammarians,  supports  the  idea 
of  trine  immersion,  as  it  conveys  the  idea  of  repeated 
action. 

Donneo;an,  in  his  Greek  and  Ennrlish  Lexicon,  de- 
fines  the  word  thus  :  '''Baptizo,  To  immerse  repeatedly 
into  a  liquid."  This  is  his  first  meaning  of  the  word. 
Donnegan  is  an  author  acknowledged  to  be  reputable, 
and  worthy  of  consideration. 

Bretschneider  defines  haptizo  thus :  "  Properly,  often 
to  dip,  often  to  wash."  Mr.  Campbell  remarks  that 
Bretschneider  is  said  to  be  the  most  critical  lexicogra- 
pher of  the  New  Testament. 

Liddell  and  Scott,  authors  of  reputation,  define  it, 
"To  dip  repeatedly. ^^ 

Hence,  the  fact  that  the  Greek  word  haptizo,  from 
which  we  have  the  English  word  baptize,  is  a  word  of 
frequentative  form — i.  e.^  conveying  an  idea  of  re- 


10  DEBATE    ON  TRINE  IMMERSION. 

peated  action — we  maintain  is  a  supporting  argument 
in  favor  of  trine  immersion. 

There  are  different  theories  in  regard  to  the  termi- 
nation zo  in  the  word  haptizo.  Mr.  Campbell's  theory 
was  that  it  conveyed  the  idea  of  rapid  motion.  (See 
Campbell  and  Rice's  Debate,  p.  78.)  Mr.  Carson's 
theory  is  this :  "  The  termination  zo,  when  employed 
to  form  a  derivative,  appears  to  me  to  have  served 
some  such  purpose  as  the  Hebrew  causal  form,  and  to 
denote  the  making  of  the  action  of  the  verb  to  be  per- 
formed. Ex :  '  It  is  better  to  enrich  others  than  to  be 
rich.' "     [Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  20.] 

But  another  class  of  lexicographers  and  gramma- 
rians has  accounted  for  the  termination  zo,  on  the 
ground  that  it  means  repeated  action.  And  this  is 
the  explanation  we  accept,  believing  it  to  be  most  nat- 
ural and  correct. 

"  It  is  well  to  observe  that,  in  the  New  Testament — 
1st,  hapto,  with  its  compound,  embapto,  is  used  six 
times,  but  never  of  baptism  ;  2d,  haptizo  is  used  eighty 
times,  and  in  every  instance  of  baptism.  Now,  this 
use  of  a  frequentative  form  for  baptism,  in  preference 
to  one  which  expresses  the  simple  meaning,  "  to  im- 
merse," best  agrees  with  trine  immersion.  It  is  true 
that  the  difference  in  meaning  between  the  simple  and 
the  frequentative  verb  is  often,  and  even  generally, 
overlooked  in  ordinary  discourse ;  but  even  were  we 
to  admit  that  this  were  always  the  case  with  haptizo,  as 
it  appears  it  ordinarily  is,  it  would  still  seem  strange 
that  the  frequentative  is  uniformly  used,  and  the  sim- 
ple never,  when  speaking  of  baptism.  If  there  were 
no  shade  of  distinction,  no  difference  in  their  signifi- 
cation, why  should  one  be  used  exclusively  when  the 
immersions  of  baptism  are  mentioned?  And  why, 
unless  the  trine  immersion  be  signified,  this  studied 
distinction  in  their  use?  Let  it  be  remembered  that 
the  first  Latin  who  mentions  this  rite,  as  well  as  St. 


MR.    QUINTER's   first    ADDRESS.  11 

Jerome,  translates  hapiizo  at  times  by  mergito.  [Chrys- 
tal,  Modes  of  Baptism,  p.  157.] 

Chrystal  was  a  member  of  the  Church  of  England. 
That  church  at  one  time  performed  baptism  not  only 
by  immersion,  but  by  trine  immersion.  And  tliis  wri- 
ter labored  earnestly,  and,  if  living,  I  suppose  is  labor- 
ing yet,  to  restore  the  ancient  and  original  mode  of 
baptism — trine  immersion — in  his  churc'h. 

Prof.  Stewart  (after  having  shown  from  Tertullian, 
and  from  Jerome,  as  referred  to  above,  that  haptizo 
was  early  translated  by  mcrgilo^  adds  the  following: 

"  It  would  appear,  then,  that  a  feeling  existed  among 
some  of  the  Latin  Fathers,  when  they  i-endered  haptizo 
by  mergito,  that  haptizo  is,  in  its  appropriate  sense, 
what  the  grammarians  and  lexicographers  call  a  'fre- 
quentative verb' — i.  e.,  one  which  denotes  repetition 
of  the  action  which  it  indicates.  Nor  are  they  alone 
in  this  :  some  of  the  best  Greek  scholars  of  the  pres- 
ent and  past  ages  have  expressed  the  same  opinion  in 
a  more  definite  shape.  Buttman  lays  it  down  as  a 
principle  of  the  Greek  language,  that  a  class  of  verbs 
ending  in  zo,  formed  from  other  verbs,  have  the  sig- 
nification of  frequentatives.  (Grammar,  sec.  119,  1, 
5,  2.)  Rost  lays  down  the  same  principle.  (Gram- 
mar, sec.  94,  2,  b.)  In  accordance  with  this,  Stephens 
and  Vossius  have  given  their  opinion  ;  and  the  highest 
authorities  of  recent  date  in  lexicography  have  deci- 
ded ih  the  same  way.  Passow,  Bretschneider,  and 
Donnegan,  all  affirm  that  hajHizo  originally  and  prop- 
erly means,  to  dip  or  plunge  often  or  repeatedly." 
[Biblical  Repository,  January,  April,  1833,  p.  294.] 

That  haptizo  instead  of  hapto  was  used  to  express 
the  ordinance  of  Christian  baptism,  because  it  was  un- 
derstood to  contain  in  it  the  idea  of  repeated  action, 
is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that,  in  the  Septuagint  trans- 
lation of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  in  reference 
to  Naaman's    case,  haptizo,  and  not  hapto,  is  used : 


12  DEBATE   ON    TRINE   IMMERSION. 

^'  Then  went  he  rlovrn  and  dipped  himself  seven  times 
in  Jordan."  (II  Kings,  v.  14.)  Now,  the  only  case 
in  the  Old  Testament  where  the  word  haptizo  is  used 
in  its  literal  sense,  is  where  the  idea  of  repeated  action 
was  to  he  conveyed.  And  in  all  the  instances  in 
which  hapto  is  used,  I  am  not  certain  that  there  is  a 
single  one  into  which  the  idea  of  repeated  action  pri- 
marily enters. 

Now,  these  facts,  viz  :  That  there  are  two  Greek 
words,  hapto  and  haptizo^  similar  except  as  regards  the 
termination  ;  that,  in  translating  the  Old  Testament, 
the  Greek  translators  used  the  word  bapio  almost  uni- 
formly; that  the  word  haptizo  is  never  used  but  once 
in  the  Old  Testament,  in  its  literal  import,  and  that  is 
where  the  action  is  expressly  stated  to  have  been  re- 
peated;  that  in  the  New  Testament,  hapto  is  always 
used  except  when  the  ordinance  of  Christian  baptism 
is  spoken  of,  and  then  haptizo  is  uniforml3^  employed; 
and  that  some  of  the  best  lexicographers  and  gram- 
marians consider  haptizo  to  possess  a  frequentative 
form,  conveying  the  idea  of  repeated  action — these 
facts,  I  say,  do  seem  to  me  to  strongly  sustain  our 
position  and  practice.  So  much  at  present  on  the 
Greek  form  of  the  word. 

When  we  come  to  English  dictionaries,  and  look  at 
the  word  "baptize,"  my  worthy  opponent  will  agree 
with  me  they  do  not  do  it  justice.  That  Webster  does 
not  define  it  correctly,  my  friend  will  at  once  aVnnit. 
But  w  hen  we  take  up  Richardson's  dictionary,  an  Eng- 
lish work,  large,  and  of  good  authority,  we  find  him 
defining  baptize  in  the  same  way  Greek  lexicons  define 
haptizo:  "To  dip  or  merge  frequently;  sometimes,  to 
sink,  to  plunge,  to  immerge."  That  is  the  definition 
of  baptize  as  given  by  Richardson,  this  English  lexi- 
cographer. Now,  he  must  have  imbibed  the  iiiea,  in 
some  way,  that  when  the  word  baptize  was  used,  it  was 
intended  to  convey  the  idea  of  repeated  action.    How 


I 


MR.    QUINTER's   first    ADDRESS.  13 

far  that  idea  was  correct,  it  is  now  our  object  to  ascer- 
tain ;  and  there  we  have  his  authority,  and  it  bhould 
have  some  weight  with  us. 

II.  3Iy  second  argument  in  favor  of  the  position  that 
trine  immersion  is  the  true  mode  of  Christian  baptism^ 
is  founded  upon  the  testimony  of  the  Ancient  Fathers^ 
and  others^  zoho  testify  that  Christ,  in  the  formula  for 
admiyiistering  baptism^  teaches  and  enjoins  trine  im- 
mersion. 

I  want  to  be  distinctly  understood.  I  am  now  going 
to  look  at  the  way  in  which  these  men  viewed  the  lan- 
guage of  the  commission;  to  examine  them  as  philol- 
ogists, and  ascertain  their  understanding  of  the  phrase- 
ology used  in  the  formula  of  baptism.  The  Greek  was 
the  native  language  of  some  of  them,  and  they  ought 
to  know  what  the  words  of  their  own  language  mean. 
Looking  at  their  testimony  upon  the  literal  meaning 
of  a  passage  of  Scripture  where  no  fanciful  explanation 
can  with  the  least  propriety  be  applied,  and  which 
teaches  physical  actions  by  the  terms  commonly  used 
to  express  such  actions,  the  judgment  of  such  men,  un- 
der such  circumstances  as  that  judgment  is  given,  not 
only  commends  itself  to  our  consideration  as  worthy 
of  attention,  but  may  safely  be  permitted  to  have  some 
influence  upon  us  when  settling  the  meaning  of  such 
passage. 

The  first  of  the  class  of  witnesses  I  am  now  calling 
up  to  give  their  testimony  as  philologists  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  formula  of  Christian  baptism  —  whether 
Christ,  when  he  said,  "baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit," 
meant  that  the  administrator  should  immerse  the  be- 
liever once  or  thrice  —  is  TertuUian.     [Time  expired. 


14  DEBATE    ON    TRINE    IMMERSION. 

[MR.  McCONNELL'S  FIRST  ADDRESS.] 

Moderators  and  Friends — I  can  most  fully  and 
heartily  indorse  the  opening  remarks  of  my  friend 
who  has  just  taken  his  seat.  I  stand  before  you  with 
mingled  emotions,  feeling,  I  humbly  trust,  to  some  ex- 
tent, at  least,  the  responsibility  that  rests  upon  every 
man  who  presumes  to  stand  before  his  fellow  mortals 
in  the  discussion  of  questions  involving  man's  present 
and  eternal  interests.  We  are  not  dealing  with  tempo- 
ralities— with  flesh  and  blood  ;  but  we  are  dealing 
with  the  incorruptible  spirits  of  men — with  questions 
upon  whose  correct  decision  rest  results  incalculable 
and  endless. 

I,  too,  should  have  been  happy  to  have  met  my  friend 
under  different  circumstances,  standing  side  by  side 
with  him,  advocating  the  one  Lord,  the  one  faith,  the 
one  baptism,  and  the  claims  of  the  "  one  God  and 
Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in 
you  all."  Nothing  would  have  cheered  my  heart  more 
than  to  have  met  him,  and  this  large  concourse  of 
brethren,  in  unity  of  sentiment,  in  full  sympathy  with 
each  other,  as  laborers  together  in  the  promotion  of 
the  great  cause  of  God  and  of  suffering  humanity.  I, 
too,  regret  what  appears  to  be  the  necessity  for  such 
an  interview  as  we  have  this  morning.  I  trust,  how- 
ever, that  we  meet  as  friends;  that  we  shall  continue 
in  friendship,  and  part  in  friendship ;  and  that  a  good 
impression  may  be  made  upon  this  community,  that 
will  tell  for  their  future  happiness  in  this  world  and 
in  the  world  to  come. 

I  trust  we  shall  have  the  undivided  attention  of  the 
audience  while  we  discuss  the  various  subjects  that 
shall  come  before  us.  And  I  hope  your  purpose  in 
being  present  will  be,  not  alone  to  discover  what  can 
be  said  in  defense  of  the  doctrines  you  may  have 
heretofore  imbibed,  but  to  search  impartially  for  the 


15 

truth,  fis  for  hiddon  treasure,  in  God's  sacred  deposi- 
tory, tlie  Holy  Bible — to  learn  the  will  of  God,  as 
given  through  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  his  divinely 
commissioned  apostles,  who  spake  as  the  ^irit  gave 
them  utterance. 

The  origin  of  this  discussion  is  well  understood  by 
the  most  of  this  community.  The  foundation  of  it 
■was  laid  some  nine  years  ago,  in  the  deep  interest  ex- 
pressed by  Bro.  John  Fillmore  to  have  a  public  dis- 
cussion on  the  issues  now  presented.  The  discussion 
was  held  ;  it  resulted  to  the  dissatisfaction  of  our  friends 
here,  the  German  Baptists,  or  "  Tonkers ;"  and  they 
intimated  that  the  weakness  in  that  case  was  not  in 
their  doctrine,  but  in  their  man.  Believing  our  posi- 
tion to  be  grounded  upon  divine  truth,  as  written  in 
the  revealed  word,  we  intimated  that  whenever  they 
found  a  man  with  whom  they  were  satisfied  as  a  de- 
fender of  their  faith,  they  might  produce  him.  After 
this  lapse  of  time,  they  have  done  so,  and  this  inter- 
view is  the  result.  I  thought  it  just  and  proper  to 
say  this  much,  in  order  that  strangers  who  may  be 
present,  and  ignorant  of  the  antecedents  of  this  discus- 
sion, might  be  apprised  of  the  causes  which  have  led 
to  this  meeting. 

Without  further  preliminaries,  let  us  at  once  pro- 
ceed to  the  examination  of  the  subject  in  hand. 

I  was  much  pleased  with  the  definition  given  of  the 
terms  of  the  proposition  by  my  friend ;  I  was  glad  to 
find  the  issue  in  the  question  so  plainly  stated  by 
him.  "Trine  immersion"  means,  three  immersions. 
Then  the  proposition  as  defined  by  him  reads  thus : 
*'  Three  immersions  are  essential  to  Christian  Bap- 
tism." The  issue  is  there  clearly  presented.  We 
deny.  Of  course,  if  my  friend's  first  statement  in 
support  of  this  proposition — viz  :  that  three  immer- 
sions are  taught  in  the  commission  as  recorded  by 
Matthew — is  correct,  his  proposition  is  sustained  ;  but 


16  DEBATE    ON   TKINE   IMMERSION. 

if  three  imraersions  are  not  taught  in  the  commission, 
then  his  proposition  is  not,  and  I  presume  will  not  be, 
sustained  in  this  discussion.  I  shall  follow  him  for  a 
few  mome"nts,  touching  upon  some  of  the  points  pre- 
sented by  him  in  support  of  the  affirmative  of  the 
proposition. 

The  first  argument  presented  by  my  friend  is  based 
upon  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  baptize."  That  the 
word  translated,  or  anglicised,  baptize,  means  to  im- 
merse, we  agree.  There  is  no  controversy  between 
us  on  this  point.  My  friend  undertakes  to  say,  how- 
ever, that  it  means  not  only  to  immerse  oncey  ''  but  to 
immerse  repeatedly."  Then  there  can  be  no  immer- 
sion without  a  repeated  immersion.  There  must  be  a 
repetition  of  the  act  of  immersing  to  fully  satisfy  the 
meaning  of  the  word  baptize.  Let  us  try  this  for  a 
moment  upon  the  commission,  and  see  how  it  will 
sound  :  "  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
immersing  them  repeatedly  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  Does  that 
express  exactly  what  our  Saviour  meant  ?  Does  that 
rendering  help  my  friend  in  his  argument  in  favor  of 
trine  immersion?  I  would  inquire  of  him  how  he 
arrives  at  the  fact,  since  baptize  (he  says)  means  "  to 
immerse  repeatedly"  that  three  immersions — no  less, 
nor  more — fill  up  the  meaning  of  our  Saviour  in  giving 
the  commission,  unless  it  be  true  that  an  act  can  not 
be  repeated  more  than  twice — i.  «.,  can  not  be  per- 
formed more  than  three  times  ?  There  must  evidently 
be  something  more  than  he  has  yet  told  us,  upon 
which  he  bases  his  limitation  of  the  meaning  of  this 
word,  baptize.  But  perhaps  he  will  tell  us  tliut  in  his 
next  speech. 

Tlie  definitions  from  Donnegan,  Bretschneider, 
Liddel  and  Scott,  etc.,  I  believe  are  correctly  quoted  ;  at 
least  we  will  let  them  go  unchallenged.  I  presume,  too, 
these  men  stand  very  fair  as  Greek  lexicographers ; 


MR.    m'CONNELL's   first   ADDRESS.  17 

I  shnll  make  no  attempt  to  impeach  their  testimony. 
The  fact  is,  it  is  a  matter  I  care  very  little  :ibout.  At 
best,  these  men,  who  state  or  hint  that  the  Greek 
word  baptlzo  means  "  to  immerse  repeatedly,"  are  but 
very  few  among  the  large  number  of  Greek  lexi- 
cographers. Besides,  there  are  several  important 
considerations  always  to  be  taken  into  account  in  ex- 
amining the  testimony  of  Greek  lexicographers — or 
those  of  the  English,  or  any  other  language — viz  :  the 
age  in  which  they  lived  ;  the  teachings  current,  the 
practices  prevalent  in  their  day ;  the  influences  that 
were  brought  to  bear;  or  at  least,  these  must  neces- 
sarily have  had  a  bearing,  upon  them  at  the  time  when 
their  lexicons  were  made.  Lexicographers  are  apt, 
and  I  suppose  it  is  their  duty,  to  define  words  according 
to  the  then  prevailing  acceptation,  not  according  to 
their  original  meaning,  in  centuries  long  preceding. 
A  portion  of  community,  our  pedobaptist  friends,  use 
the  word  baptize  to  signify  sprinkling ;  and  this  being 
the  case,  a  lexicographer  is  justifiable  iu  giving  sprink- 
ling as  the  meaning,  or  as  a  meaning,  of  the  word 
haplUm ;  but  the  question  is,  not  what  does  some 
pedobaptist  lexicographer,  or  some  lexicographer 
making  a  dictionary  to  faithfully  reflect  the  usages 
of  a  pedobaptist  community,  mean  when  using  the 
word  baptizing — but,  what  did  ou7'  Savior  mean  by  it? 
Webster's  definition  of  baptize  is  not  a  very  good  one — 
that  all  will  agree ;  but  Webster  reflected  the  popu- 
lar thought  upon  the  subject,  in  the  section  where  and 
at  the  time  when  he  made  his  dictionary.  Richard- 
son's dictionary  I  never  saw  ;  but  I  should  like  to 
know  the  precise  date  of  it ;  the  practice  that  obtained 
at  the  time  it  was  made ;  and  the  influences  in  general 
that  were  brought  to  bear  upon  it.  I  opine  that 
Richardson,  if  my  friend  here  has  quoted  him  cor- 
rectly, lias  done  the  same  that  Webster  has — reflected 
the  popular  understanding  of  the  subject  at  the  time, 
2 


18  DEBATE    ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

and  in  the  country  in  which  he  lived.  As  it  is  an 
English  dictionary,  if  it  was  made  when  the  Church 
of  England  performed  baptism  by  trine  immersion,  it 
doubtless  defines  the  word  according  to  the  then  pre- 
vailing practice  in  the  Established  Church,  and  not 
according  to  its  nature  and  primary  usage. 

But,  as  I  remarked  before,  this  is  a  point  I  care 
very  little  about,  either  one  way  or  the  other.  I  shall 
pursue  a  course  which  my  friend  is  doubtless  in  the 
habit  of  doing  equally  with  myself — that  is,  appeal 
from  the  lexicographers  to  the  men  who  wrote  the 
language  that  the  lexicographers  are  trying  to  explain. 
We  will  ourselves  go  to  the  same  source  from  which 
the  lexicographers  derive  their  information.  And  to 
the  classics  primarily,  instead  of  to  the  lexicons, 
should  have  been  my  friend's  appeal;  for  there  must 
be  his  ultimate  appeal.  We  shall  therefore  expect 
from  the  classics  an  imposing  array  of  instances  in 
which  the  word  baptize  is  used  to  signify  repeated  im- 
mersions. We  will  wait  for  this,  and  attend  to  it  when 
it  comes  up. 

AVe  are  referred  to  the  termination  20,  engrafted 
upon  the  root  hapto ;  and  pointed  to  the  fact  that  in 
the  New  Testament,  hapto  is  never  used  to  express  the 
ordinance  of  baptism,  while  bapfizo  is  invariably  em- 
ployed. This  much  we  willingly  admit.  But  when  it 
comes  to  looking  for  the  reason  why  these  different  terms 
are  used,  we  are  fed  upon  theories  and  speculations  as 
unsubstantial  and  unsatisfactory  as  the  east  wind. 
One  man  imagines  that  the  peculiar  termination  may 
have  been  added  to  indicate  repeated  action ;  another, 
that  it  may  have  some  reference  to  the  rapidify  with 
which  the  action  was  to  be  performed.  But  these  va- 
rious suppositions  have  so  slight  a  foundation  in  fact 
as  to  be  very  unsatisfactory  to  the  learned  world,  and 
the  advocates  of  these  theories  themselves  have  never 
presumed  to  build  anything  very  substantial  upon  them. 


MR.   m'cONNELL's   first   ADDRESS.  19 

Therefore,  I  am  not  yet  prepared  to  accept  of  my 
frieu<l's  speculations  on  this  subject,  and  to  conclude 
that  haptizo  lucMns  "  to  immerse  repeatedly,"  and  thut 
''  repeatedly,"  in  this  particular  case,  means  just  three 
times. 

I  will  next  refer  for  a  moment  to  Naaman's  case.  The 
Greek  word  used  in  the  Septuagint  version  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  in  describing  that  event,  is 
"  haptizo  f^  and  because  that  word  was  used,  my  friend 
says  Naaman  dipped  himself  seven  times;  or  because 
Naaman  dipped  himself  seven  times,  therefore  that 
word  was  used  (the  relation  between  cause  and  effect 
does  not  seem  to  be  very  clear  here);  at  any  rate  the 
word  is  haptizo^  and  repeated  action  was  performed. 
But  mark  this  :  The  repetition  of  the  action  was  not 
indicated  by  anything  inherent  in  the  nature  of  the  word 
haptizo^  but  by  the  numeral  seven.  If  bapHzo  in  its 
nature  contained  the  idea  of  repeated  action,  why  add 
a  numeral  to  indicate  it  ?  In  the  many  cases  in  Scrip- 
ture in  which  a  reference  is  made  to  several  acts,  or 
several  repetitions  of  the  same  act,  it  is  always  specified 
in  clear  and  unmistakable  language,  not  by  a  change 
in  the  form  of  the  word,  but  by  the  use  of  numerals.  Ex- 
amples— '•  The  priest  shall  sprinkle  of  the  blood  seven 
times  before  the  Lord"  (Leviticus,  iv :  6,  17);  "And 
he  sprinkled  thereof  upon  the  altar  seven  times  "  (Le- 
viticus, viii :  11)  ;  "  Three  times  shalt  thou  keep  a  feast 
unto  me  in  the  year  "  (Ex.,  xxiii :  14) ;  ''Three  times  in 
a  year  shall  all  thy  males  appear  before  the  Lord  thy 
God"  (Deut.,  xvi:  16);  and  innumerable  other  in- 
stances. Hence  we  conclude  that  in  the  institution  of 
the  ordinance  of  Christian  baptism,  if  Christ  had  in- 
tended that  the  believer  should  be  immersed  three  times, 
he  would  have  said  "  three  times." 

Another  word  in  reference  to  Naaman's  case.  It  is 
plainly  said  that  Naaman  "  baptized  himself  in  Jordan 
seven  times" — the  Greek  word  haptizo  being   used. 


20  DEBATE   ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

Now,  if  hapfizo  indicntes  repeated  action,  Naanian 
must  have  dipped  himself  at  least  fourteen  times  ;  and  if 
it  mean  trine  immersion,  as  my  frienci  insists,  he  must 
have  dipped  himself  in  Jordan  twenty-one  times.  Does 
my  friend  accept  this  interpretation  ?  Yet  such  is  the 
inevitable  conclusion  if  his  position  be  correct,  that  it 
"  takes  three  immersions  to  constitute  one  act  of  bap- 
tism." 

We  will  now,  for  a  moment  only,  look  at  the  argu- 
ment grounded  on  the  construction  the  ancient  Fathers 
placed  upon  the  language  of  the  commission.  As  my 
friend  had  not  finished  his  argument  upon  this  point, 
having  only  mentioned  the  name  of  Tertullian  when 
his  time  expired,  I  shall  have  little  to  say  at  this  time 
in  reply  thereto. 

Tertullian,  then,  is  mentioned  as  one  of  the  ancient 
Fathers  who  taught  that  the  language  of  the  commis- 
sion conveyed  the  idea  of  trine  immersion.  But  the 
question  arises,  when  did  Tertullian  live  ?  On  looking 
into  history,  we  find  that  he  was  born  A.  D.  204 — in 
the  beginning  of  the  third  century.  His  birth  was  re- 
moved more  than  a  hundred  3'ears  from  the  death  of 
the  last  apostle.  And  who  that  is  at  all  acquainted 
with  the  history  of  the  Church,  does  not  know  that 
during  the  first  centuries  of  its  existence,  numerous 
and  gross  errors  crept  in,  so  that  much  of  the  plain 
teaching  of  the  apostles  was  perverted  and  obscured  ? 
The  very  Fathers  upon  whose  testimony  my  friend 
relies,  believed  and  taught  what  the  whole  Christian 
world  now  acknowledges  to  have  been  the  most  enor- 
mous and  palpable  errors,  upon  other  points ;  and 
what  assurance  has  my  friend  that  the  doctrine  of  trine 
immersion  was  not  one  of  those  errors?  Why  does 
he  go  to  the  so-called  Christian  Fathers,  who  lived  in 
an  age  when  numerous  corruptions  had  overs  wept  the 
whole  body  of  the  Church,  instead  of  appealing  to  the 
apostles,  to  whom  the  commission  was  given,  and  who 


MK.  m'cu>;nell's  first  address.  21 

must  have  understood  the  lannjuaf^e  of  the  commission 
at  least  as  Avellas  men  Avho  lived  a  century,  or  two  or 
three  centuries,  after  the  death  of  the  last  apostle  ?  If 
my  friend  will  bring  any  precept  or  example  of  the 
apostles  in  favor  of  trine  immersion,  or  by  any  process 
of  fair  induction  will  show  that  they  so  understood  the 
commission,  we  shall  at  once  accept  such  evidence, 
and  become  trine  immersionists ;  but  we  are  not  dis- 
posed to  rely,  in  a  matter  of  so  much  importance  as 
this,  upon  the  testimony  of  men  who  live/l  after  many 
and  gross  errors  had  corrupted  the  Church  and  per- 
verted the  plain  teachings  of  Christ  and  his  apostles. 
Why,  we  can  show  by  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers, 
that  it  was  in  the  century  in  which  Tertullian  lived 
that  sprinkling  w^as  introduced,  which  my  friend  and 
myself  equally  repudiate  as  repugnant  to  the  plain 
teachings  of  the  word.  I  am  disposed,  with  all  due  re- 
spect to  my  friend's  doubtless  sincere  belief  upon  this 
subject,  to  look  upon  trine  immersion  as  one  of  the 
corruptions  that  crept  into  the  Church  about  the  same 
time  with  sprinkling,  and  worthy  of  the  same  regard, 
no  more  and  no  less — both  based,  not  upon  the  Word 
of  God,  but  upon  the  traditions  and  speculations  of  men. 
Leaving  for  the  present  the  ideas  of  others  as  to  the 
intent  of  the  commission,  let  us  look  for  a  moment  at 
the  lano-uao-e  of  the  commission  for  ourselves.  And 
first,  upon  the  phrase,  "  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  We  do  not 
deem  that  there  is  any  special  force,  any  particular 
addition  to  the  meaning,  contained  in  the  \vords, 
"  name  of."  It  is  an  idiomatic  expression,  a  form  of 
speaking,  common  in  several  ancient  languages.  The 
phrase,  (eis  to  onoma)  "  into  the  name  of  the  Father," 
means  nothing  more  than  simply,  (^is)  /'into  the 
Father."  And  the  last  clause  of  the  commission  means 
simply,  ''bafitizing  them  into  the  Father,  and  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit."     Examples  of  a  similar  con- 


22  DEBATE    ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

struction  may  be  found  scattered  all  throuo^h  both  the 
Old  and  New  Testament  Scriptures.     "  Then  began 
men  to  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  "  (Gen.,  iv  :  26), 
means  simply  that  men  began  to  call  upon_the  Lord, 
using  his  name  in  their  petitions.      Again,  when  Elijah 
called  down  fire  from  heaven  to  consume  his  sacrifice 
and   confound    the   false  prophets   who    sacrificed  to 
Baal,  he  said  (I  Kings,  xviii :  24),  "  Call  ye  on  the  name 
of  your  gods,  and  I  will  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  ;" 
meaning  simply,  "I  will  call  upon  the  Lord."     For, 
how  did  Elijah  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord?     The 
answer  will  be  found  in  the   36th  and  37th  verses  : 
"  And  it  came  to  pass,  at  the  time  of  the  offering  of 
the  evening  sacrifice,  that  Elijah  the  Prophet  came 
near  and  said,  "Lord  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  of 
Israel,  let  it  be  known  this  day  that  thou  art  God  in 
Israel,  and   that  I  am  thy  servant,  and  that  I  have 
done  all  these  things  at  thy  word.     Hear  me,  0  Lord, 
hear  me,  that  this  people  may  know  that  thou  art  the 
Lord  God."     So  we  see  that  in  "calling  upon   the 
name  of   the   Lord,"  Elijah  simply  called  upon  the 
Lord.     The  same  form  of  expression  in  the  case  of 
Naaman  (II  Kings,  v:  11),  evidently  means  no  more: 
"  Behold,  I  thought,  he  will  surely  come  out  to  me, 
and  stand,  and  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  his  God." 
See,  also.  Psalm  cxvi :  4,  13,  17;  and  scores  of  other 
places  in  the  Psalms.     Also,  Isaiah,  xii :  4  :    "  Praise 
the  Lord,  call  upon  his  riame.'^     In  the  New  Testament 
likewise  ;  see  Acts,  xxii :  16 :    "  Arise,  and  be  baptized, 
and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord."    Evidently  the  expression  nowhere  means  any- 
thing more  than  simply  calling  upon  the  Lord. 

In  the  same  way  are  we  to  understand  the  language 
of  the  commission,  *'  Baptizing  theui  into  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit."     \_Time  ejcpired. 


MR.    QUINTER's    second    ADDRESS.  23 

[MR.  QUINTER'S  SECOND  ADDRESS.] 
Friendly  Moderators — Resuming  the  discussion 
on  my  part,  I  will  proceed  first  to  make  some  reply 
to  the  objections  my  worthy  friend  has  taken  to  my 
first  argument.  lie  offered  some  criticisms  on  the 
idea  I  suggested,  that  the  word  haptizo  indicates  re- 
peated action.  He  would  have  you  understand  that 
I  am  involved  in  this  diflSculty :  if  the  word  baptize 
includes  in  it  the  idea  of  repeated  action,  then  when- 
ever the  word  baptize  is  used  there  must  necessarily 
be  a  repetition  of  the  action.  I  anticipated  that  ob- 
jection. I  admit  here  that  this  idea  of  frequency  of 
action  does  not  necessarily  always  enter  into  the 
meaning  of  the  word.  The  idea  is  this :  That  suffix, 
those  concluding  letters,  20,  in  some  way  suggested  to 
lexicographers  and  grammarians,  men  profoundly 
skilled  in  the  Greek  language,  the  idea  of  plurality 
of  action.  That  this  thought  was  not  always  and  in- 
evitably connected  with  it  I  frankly  admit ;  conse- 
quently an  argument  based  upon  that  point  alone 
would  not  be  conclusive.  But,  as  Professor  Stewart 
declares,  "the  best  Greek  scholars  of  the  present  and 
past  ages  have  expressed  the  opinion  "  that  the  idea 
of  plurality  of  action  was  inherent  in  the  word  baptizo; 
this  fact  I  desire  to  spread  before  this  community — 
to  go  as  far  as  our  discussion  goes,  whether  by  our 
living  voice,  or  by  the  power  of  the  press — and  let  it, 
with  my  friend's  objections  to  it,  receive  a  proper  ex- 
amination, and  have  its  due  weight  in  the  decision  of 
the  question.  It  does  seem  to  me  that  the  great 
Christian  Lawgiver  in  giving  this  commission,  and 
his  apostles  in  referring  to  the  ordinance  thus  com- 
manded, in  using  a  word  with  this  peculiar  ending, 
must  have  intended  to  convey  some  idea  thereby  which 
was  not  contained  in  the  word  bapto,  from  which  it  is 
derived.     As  I  have  said,  mv  belief  is  that  the  addi- 


24  DEBATE    ON   THINE   IMMERSION. 

tional  idea  therein  expressed  is  that  of  a  repetition 
of  the  action. 

My  friend  made  some  allusion  to  Richardson,  whose 
definition  I  gave,  and  he  said,  "  if  I  had  quoted  him 
correctly."  Alexander  Campbell  has  quoted  him  in 
defense  of  immersion,  and  calls  him  "  the  great  and 
profound  Richardson."  I  gave  the  quotation  as  he 
gives  it.  I  have  seen  Richardson's  dictionary,  but 
have  never  examined  it  closely.  As  regards  the 
time  it  was  first  published,  I  believe  it  is  a  work  of 
the  present  century  ;  I  think,  published  before  the 
middle  of  the  present  century ;  at  least,  my  impres- 
sion is  that  it  is  rather  a  late  work.  As  regards  the 
influences  by  which  Richardson  was  surrounded,  my 
friend  must  know  that  they  were  no  stronger  toward 
makino;  him  a  trine  immersionist  than  toward  makinor 
him  simply  an  immersionist ;  for  in  England,  where 
his  dictionary  was  published,  the  prevailing  practice 
then,  as  now,  was  sprinkling.  The  influences  of  the 
Church  of  Enorland  could  have  had  nothinfij  to  do  with 
his  opinions  as  a  lexicographer,  or  it  would  have  pre- 
vented him  from  defining  baptism  to  mean  immersion. 
Bat  Richardson  had  scholarship  enough  and  inde- 
pendence enough  to  define  baptize  by  "  immerse,"  and 
his  scholarship  taught  him  that  baptism  meant  not 
only  immersion,  but  repeated  immersion  ;  and  his  in- 
dependence and  honesty  would  not  permit  him  to  let 
the  prevailing  practice  of  sprinkling  bias  his  views 
or  check  his  expression  of  them ;  hence  he  defined 
the  meaning  of  baptize  to  be  "  to  merge  frequently ^ 
So  far  as  regards  Richardson. 

My  friend  says,  why  go  to  the  Christian  fathers? 
why  not  go  at  once  to  the  apostles,  and  inquire  what 
construction  they  placed  upon  the  language  of  the 
commission?  I  will  come  to  that  in  due  time.  As  I 
have  already  said,  I  am  pursuing  the  course  of  argu- 
pient  that  is  usually  pursued  by  us  immersionists  iu 


MR.    QUINTER's    second    ADDRESS.  25 

our  controversies  with  the  pedobaptists ;  I  want  one 
thing  to  lead  naturally — to  prepare  and  pave  the 
way — to  another;  and  I  shall  try  to  manage  my  side 
of  this  discussion  as,  in  my  humble  judgment,  shall 
seem  to  be  best  calculated  to  present  the  evidence  in 
favor  of  what  I  honestly  believe  to  be  the  true  form 
of  Christian  baptism. 

My  friend,  referring  to  Naaraan's  case,  asks  :  "  If 
haptizo  in  its  nature  contains  the  idea  of  repeated  ac- 
tion, why  add  a  numeral  to  indicate  the  number  of 
times  the  action  is  repeated?"  I  do  not  claim  that 
'•repeatedly"  means  any  definite  number  of  times — 
three,  four,  five,  or  seven ;  I  only  claim  that  bapfizo 
conveys  the  idea  of  repeated  action ;  but  how  often 
the  action  is  repeated  is  indicated  by  using  a  numeral, 
or  in  some  other  way. 

Having  thus  referred  to  (and  I  think  fully  an- 
swered) the  points  presented  by  my  friend,  I  will 
now  proceed  with  my  own  argument.  I  was  about 
introducing  the  testimony  of  Tertullian,  which  I  will 
preface  by  a  short  sketch  of  his  life  and  character,  as 
drawn  by  one  who  wrote  a  preface  to  the  English 
translation  of  his  works  by  Rev.  C.  Dodgson,  M.  A. : 

"  Of  his  mental  qualities,  the  ancient  Church  seems 
to  have  been  much  impressed  with  his  acuteness, 
energy,  learning  and  eloquence.  What  we  have  left 
are  apparently  but  a  small  portion  of  the  great  num- 
ber of  works  which  he  composed ;  and  these  indicate 
no  ordinary  fertility  of  mind,  in  that  he  so  little  re- 
peats himself,  or  recurs  to  favorite  thoughts,  as  is  so 
frequently  the  case  even  Avith  the  great  St.  Augustine. 
His  character  of  mind  is  thus  vividly  described  by 
Vicentius :  '  As  Oricren  amonoj  the  Greeks,  so  is 
Tertullian  among  the  Latins  to  be  accounted  the  first 
of  all  our  writers.  For  who  was  more  learned  than 
he?  Who  in  divinity  or  humanity  more  [)racticed? 
For,  by  a  wonderful  capacity  of  mind,  he  attained  to 


26  DEBATE    ON   TRINE    IMMERSION. 

and  understood  all  philosophy,  all  the  sects  of  philos- 
ophers, all  their  founders  and  suppoi'ters,  all  their 
systems,  all  sorts  of  histories  and  studies.  And  for 
his  wit,  was  he  not  so  excellent,  so  grave,  so  forcible, 
that  he  almost  undertook  the  overthrow  of  nothing, 
which,  either  by  quickness  of  wit  or  weight  of  reason, 
he  crushed  not?  Further,  who  is  able  to  express  the 
praise  his  style  of  speech  deserves,  which  is  fraught 
(I  know  not  how)  with  that  force  of  reason  that  such 
as  it  can  not  persuade,  it  compels  to  assent ;  whose 
so  many  words  are  almost  so  many  sentences;  whose 
so  many  sentences  are  so  many  victories?  This  know 
Marcion  and  Appelles,  Praxeas  and  Hermogenes, 
Jews,  Gentiles,  Gnostics,  and  divers  others,  whose 
blasphemous  opinions  he  has  overthrown  with  his 
many  and  great  volumes,  as  it  had  been  with  thunder- 
bolts.' "     [Preface  to  Tertullian's  Works,  Vol.  I,  p.  4.] 

Tertullian  thus  connects  trine  immersion  with  and 
draws  it  from  the  lanojuaore  of  Christ  in  the  commis- 
sion :  "For  the  law  of  immersion  was  enjoined,  and 
the  form  prescribed;  'Go,'  said  he,  'teach  the  na- 
tions, immersing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.'  (Works,  p. 
263.)  And  in  his  refutation  of  the  doctrines  of 
Praxeas,  he  says  :  "  After  the  resurrection,  promising 
he  would  send  the  promise  of  the  Father;  and  lastly, 
commanding  that  they  should  immerse  into  the  Father, 
and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit ;  not  into  one  name, 
for  we  are  immersed  for  each  name,  into  each  person  ; 
not  once,  hut  thrice.'^     [P*'^©^  659.] 

Here  we  have  Tertullian  founding  trine  immersion 
on  the  language  of  the  commission,  and,  of  course, 
making  it  as  old  as  the  commission. 

My  next  witness,  as  regards  the  meaning  of  the 
phraseology  used  by  our  Lord  in  the  commission,  is 
Monulus,  one  of  the  eighty-seven  Bishops  who  con- 
stituted the  famous  Council  of  Carthago,  in  the  time 


MR.    QUINTER'S   second   ADDRESS.  27 

of  Cyprif^n,  about  the  yoar  256  of  the  Christian  era. 
I  hold  in  my  hand  Cyprian's  work,  containing  the 
speeches  of  a  number  of  Bishops  at  that  Council. 
The  baptism  of  heretics,  and  incidentally  the  ques- 
tion of  baptism  generally,  was  discussed  at  that 
Council.  In  the  speech  of  Monulus  are  these  words  : 
*'  The  true  doctrine  of  our  holy  mother,  the  Catholic 
Church,*  hath  always,  my  brethren,  been  with  us, 
and  doth  yet  abide  with  us,  and  especially  in  the  ar- 
ticle of  baptism,  and  the  trine  immersion  wherewith  it 
is  celebrateci ;  our  Lord  having  said,  '  Go  ye,  and 
baptize  the  Gentiles,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.' "  [Works  of 
Cyprian,  Part  1,  p.  240.] 

Let  us  look  at  the  bearing  of  this  testimony  for  a 
moment.  My  friend,  here,  has  tried  to  fix  the  date 
of  the  origin  of  trine  immersion  in  the  time  of  Ter- 
tuUian,  because  he  is  the  first  of  the  Fathers  whose 
writings  are  extant,  who  particularly  describes  the 
manner  in  which  trine  immersion  is  performed.  But 
here  is  Monulus,  who  lived  a  little  after  Tertullian,  a 
portion  of  his  life  being  cotemporary  with  Tertullian, 
and  what  does  Monulus  say?  Does  he  speak  of  trine 
immersion  as  havinoj  oriojinated  in  Tertullian's  time? 
No;  Monulus  says  this  doctrine  of  trine  immersion 
^' kafh  always  been  ^vhh.  \xs.^'  Always?  Since  when 
does  that  mean?  Evidently,  since  baptism,  which  the 
Council  were  discussing,  had  been  established  as  an 
ordinance  by  the  command  of  the  Great  Head  of  the 
Church,  in  the  commission  he  gave  his  disciples.  The 
idea  has  become  prevalent  in  the  world,  either  through 
ignorance  or  something  worse — for  bad  as  ignorance 
is,  there  can  be  worse  things — that,  though  some  men 

*  We  scarcely  need  remark  that  the  "Catholic  Church  "  mentioned 
by  Miinulus  is  not  the  Papal  hierarchy  which,  in  a  1  iter  age,  assumed 
that  name,  and  has  since  continued  to  wear  it  unworthily,  but  the 
true  Church  of  Christ,  as  it  existed  before  Papacy  had  its  origin. 


28  DEBATE    ON    TRINE   IMMERSION. 

anciently  did  believe  in  trine  immersion,  they  grounded 
it  upon  mere  tradition.  If  I  have  understood  my 
friend  correctly,  he  has  sought  to  convey  the  same 
idea  here  to-day.  I  want  to  show  you,  and  I  think  I 
am  showing  you,  that  these  men,  who  lived  back 
yonder  in  that  early  age  of  the  Avorld,  while  sustain- 
ing with  all  their  power  the  doctrine  of  trine  immer- 
sion, tell  us  where  they  obtained  it ;  not  from  tradition, 
but  from  the  commission.  This  doctrine  of  trine  im- 
mersion, says  Monulus,  "  hath  always  been  with  us.^' 

I  next  call  your  attention  to  the  testimony  of 
Chrysostom,  who  lived  in  the  fourth  century.  He 
was  born  A.  D.  354,  at  Antioch,  of  noble  and  opulent 
parents.  He  was  taught  philosophy  by  Andragatliius, 
and  spent  some  time  in  the  schools  of  Athens.  After 
a  very  successful  commencement  of  legal  practice,  he 
relinquished  the  profession  of  law  for  that  of  divinity, 
and  was  baptized  at  the  age  of  twenty- three  by  Mele- 
tius.  Bishop  of  Antioch.  He  studied  the  Bible  much, 
and  it  is  said  was  able  to  repeat  the  whole  of  the 
Scriptures.  He  was  the  most  renowned  of  all  the 
Greek  Fathers. 

Chr3^sostom  says  (I  quote  from  Bingham's  transla- 
tion in  his  "  Antiquities  of  the  Christian  Church," 
Book  XI,  chap,  xi.,  sec.  7):  "  Christ  delivered  to  his 
disciples  one  baptism,  in  three  immersions  of  the  body, 
when  he  said  to  them,  '  Go,  teach  all  nations,  baptizmg 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  " 

So  here,  in  the  fourth  century,  we  have  a  native 
Greek,  a  profound  scholar,  a  devoted  student  of  the 
Bible,  reading  the  commission,  and  declaring  that 
Christ  taught  trine  immersion  therein. 

Pehigius,  Bisliop  of  Rome,  shall  be  my  next  author- 
ity. He  lived  in  tiie  sixth  century.  He  savs:  ''  There 
are  many  who  say  that  they  baptize  in  the  name  of 
Christ  alone,  and  by  a  single  immersion.     But  the 


MR.    QUINTER'S    second    ADDRESS.  29 

Gospel  comninnfl.  wliicli  was  given  bj  Gofl  himself, 
sind  our  Lord  rind  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  rerriirids  us 
that  we  should  administer  holy  baptism  to  every  one  in 
tiie  name  of  the  Trinity,  and  by  trine  immersion  ;  for 
our  Lord  said  to  his  disciples,  'Go,  baptize  all  nations, 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.'" 

Tims,  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  learned  Pelagius 
drew  the  doctrine  of  trine  immersion,  not  from  the 
traditions  of  men,  but  from  the  written  Word  of 
God — from  the  formula  of  baptism  given  by  Christ  to 
his  disciples. 

Leaving  these  ancients — many  more  of  whom  I 
might  mention  did  time  permit — let  me  refer  to  one 
or  two  modern  testimonies  on  this  subject.  And  first, 
I  will  hear  Bishop  Beveridge,  one  of  the  most  eminent 
and  most  learned  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  England. 
He  says:  ''Neither  did  the  Church  ever  esteem  that 
baptism  valid  wdiich  was  not  administered  exactly 
according  to  the  institution,  in  the  name  of  all  the 
three  Persons;  which  the  primitive  Christians  were 
so  strict  in  the  observance  of,  that  it  was  enjoined 
that  all  persons  to  be  baptized  should  be  plunged 
three  times — first  at  *  the  name  of  the  Father,'  and 
then  at  '  the*  name  of  the  Son,'  and  lasily  at  '  the 
name  of  the  Holy  Ghost;'  that  so  every  Person 
might  be  distinctly  nominated,  and  so  our  Saviour's 
institution  exactly  observed  in  the  administration  of 
this  sacrament."  [Bishop  Beveridge's  Works,  Vol. 
VllI,  page  33(3.] 

And  in  his  collection  of  the  Canons  of  Primitive 
Christianity,  Bishop  Beveridge  says  (as  quoted  in 
Clirystal's  History  of  the  Modes  of  Baptism,  page 
194),  "'That  this"  (meaning  trine  immersion)  "  was  in 
some  way  handed  down  from  the  apostles,  we  dare 
not  deny." 

Bishop  Beveridge  was  one  of  the  most  learned  men 


30  DEBATE    ON   TRINE  IMMERSION. 

that  the  Church  of  England  ever  produced  ;  he  had 
made  baptism  a.  subject  of  much  study,  and  had  in- 
vestigated it  profoundly  ;  and  the  result  of  his  inves- 
tigations was  that  it  could  not  be  denied  that  trine 
immersion  was  handed  down  from  the  apostles,  and 
that,  to  observe  this  institution  of  baptism  exactly,  it 
should  be  done  by  trine  immersion.  With  all  his 
philological  attainments,  his  profound  learning,  his 
excellent  judgment,  he  conceived  that  he  found  trine 
immersion  taught  in  the  commission. 

I  will  next  call  your  attention  to  the  testimony  of 
Whiston,  best  known  to  the  general  public  as  the 
translator  of  our  common  edition  of  Josephus.  Wil- 
liam Whiston  was  a  very  learned  man,  and  a  polem- 
ical or  controversial  writer  of  no  mean  ability.  He 
was  much  engaged  in  controversy,  having  become  an 
Arian  and  anti-pedobaptist.  Among  the  works  pub- 
lished by  him  is  one  entitled  '^Primitive  Christianity 
Revived,"  a  portion  of  which  is  devoted  to  the 
*'  Apostolic  Constitution  and  Canons."  He  wrote  a 
long  essay  to  prove  that  these  are  of  apostolic  origin 
and  authority.  His  writings  show  an  extensive 
acquaintance  with  Christian  antiquity.  His  theolog- 
ical sentiments,  however,  were  very  unpopular  in  his 
day,  on  account  of  which  there  was  considerable  preju- 
dice against  him.  In  the  course  of  his  arguments 
to  prove  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  constitutions,  he 
introduces  a  passage  from  Tertullian,  and  upon  it  re- 
marks as  follows : 

"From this  eminent  passage, observe,  first,  that  the 
practice  in  baptism  seems  not  to  have  been,  as  now, 
*I  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;'  but  while  the  person 
to  be  baptized  (or,  probably,  the  surety,  if  an  infant,) 
repeated  the  creed  and  renunciation  after  the  Bishop 
or  Presbyter,  or  at  least  their  abridgment,  the  second 
time,  the  Bishop  or  Presbyter  dipped  him,  once  at  the 


MR.    QlTINTKll's    SKCOND    ADDRESS.  31 

naminnr  of  the  Father,  a  ftecond  time  at  tlie  naming 
of  the  Son,  and  a  lldrd  time  at  tiie  naming  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Whicli  manner  of  baptizing  agrees  ex- 
actly with  the  rule  in  the  Constitutions,  and  the  practice 
in  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  and  seems  to  be  the  proper 
meaning  of  the  original  command,  of  baptizing  or 
dipping,  *  ew  to  onomaf  AT  the  respective  names,  of 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  and  not  according 
to  the  common  exposition,  IN  their  name — by  their 
authority,  or  to  their  worship.  Since  baptism  is  only 
designed  originally  into  the  death  of  Christ,  though 
so  ordered  as  to  put  us  in  mind  of  the  Father,  wiio 
sent  him,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  witnessed  to 
him,  at  the  same  time,  as  the  Constitutions  particularly 
inform  us.  Second,  that,  therefore,  the  trine  immer- 
sion is  directly  of  our  Saviour's  own  appointment,  and 
the  very  meaning  of  the  original  command  for  bap- 
tism, both  in  Matthew  and  the  constitutions;  and, 
therefore,  not  to  be  altered  by  any  Christian."  [Essay 
on  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  Vol.  HI.,  pp.  399,  400.] 
This  we  regard  as  an  important  testimony.  Wliis- 
ton  affirms  that  trine  immersion  is  directly  of  our 
Saviour's  own  appointment,  and  the  very  meaning  of 
the  command  of  Christ.  He  says  it  was  not  origin- 
ally performed  as  it  now  is.  The  administrator  now 
says,  "  I  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  then  dips 
the  subject  but  once;  whereas,  if  the  ordinance  is 
performed  according  to  the  command,  the  bishop  will 
dip  him  once  at  the  naming  of  the  Father,  a  second 
time  at  the  naming  of  the  Son,  and  a  third  time  at 
the  naming  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  We  see  that  Whiston 
declares  in  plain  and  positive  language  for  trine  im- 
mersion from  the  lan^uaore  of  the  commission.  And 
as  he  was  an  Arian,  trine  immersion  is  not  a  practice 
peculiar  to  Trinitarians,  neither  has  it  grown  out  of 
any  peculiar  views  of   the   Trinity,  but   out  of  the 


32  DEBATE    ON   TRINE    IMMERSION. 

command  of  Christ,  being  suggested  by  the  phraseol- 
ogy of  that  command. 

I  have  now  given  you  the  testimony  of  learned  and 
eminent  men,  ancient  and  modern  scholars,  who  have 
conceived  and  promulgated  the  idea  that  trine  immer- 
sion is  taught  in  the  language  of  Christ  in  giving  his 
commission.  I  said  I  should  pursue  in  this  discussion 
the  course  usually  pursued  by  us  immersionists  in  our 
controversies  with  the  pedobaptists.  Such  authori- 
ties as  these,  both  ancient  and  modern,  are  used  by 
us  in  such  discussions  to  sustain  our  doctrine  of  im- 
mersion. And  if  they  are  worth  anything  when  used 
to  sustain  immersion,  it  would  be  very  inconsistent  in 
my  opponent  to  claim  that  the  same  arguments,  the 
identical  authorities,  suddenly  become  worthless  when 
used  to  sustain  trine  immersion.     \_Ti7ne  expired. 


[MR.  McCONNELL'S  SECOND  ADDRESS.] 

Gentlemen  Moderators — I  was  happy  to  hear 
my  friend  admit,  at  the  commencement  of  his  last 
speech,  that  the  word  haptizo  does  not  necessarily  con- 
tain in  itself  the  idea  of  repeated  action.  So  we 
agree  upon  that  point ;  and  as  in  all  other  cases,  in 
the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  where  God  has  in- 
tended an  act  to  be  repeated  a  given  number  of  times, 
he  has  indicated  it  by  the  use  of  numerals,  we  there- 
fore conclude  that  if  God  had  intended  a  repetition 
of  the  act  of  immersing,  he  would  have  indicated  that 
by  numerals.  Even  if  the  word  itself  did  indicate  re- 
peated action,  Christ  in  giving  his  commission,  in 
justice  to  the  apostles  and  to  the  world  at  large, 
should  have  used  numerals  to  designate  how  often  the 
act  should  be  repeated.  But  none  of  these  things 
obtain;  hence  we  conclude  the  Lord  did  not  intend 
any  repetition  of  the  act  indicated  by  the  word  hap- 


Mil.  m'connell's  second  address.  33 

tizo.  But  as  my  friend  hns  himself  given  up  the  ar- 
gument upon  the  termination  zo,  it  needs  no  further 
discussion. 

My  fri(!nd,  in  his  hist  argument,  it  seems  to  me,  pur- 
sues a  very  singuhir  course.  In  his  first  argument 
he  made  some  reference  to  the  Christian  Fathers ;  I 
asked  him,  why  not  go  at  once  to  the  apostles,  and 
inquire  what  construction  they  placed  upon  the  lan- 
guage of  the  commission  ?  They  certainly  better  knew 
what  the  Saviour  meant  in  the  commission  addressed 
by  hiui  to  them^  than  men  could  know  who  did  not 
live  till  centuries  after  they  were  dead.  He  said  he 
was  cotning  to  that ;  he  was  going  to  trace  trine  im- 
mersion direct  to  the  apostles  and  the  commission. 
So,  commencing  with  TertuUian,  A.  I).  204,  he  took 
us  —  where?  Back  to  the  commission?  No ;  but 
down  in  an  opposite  direction,  to  Monulus  and  the 
Council  of  Carthage,  A.  D.  256.  And  from  Monulus 
he  takes  us  to  Chrysostom,  in  the  fourth  century  ;  and 
from  Chrysostom  to  Pehigius,  in  the  sixth  century; 
and  from  Pelagius  to  Bishop  Beveridge  and  William 
Winston,  of  England,  in  modern  times.  But  I  can 
not  see  that  this  brings  us  any  nearer — as  he  promised 
to  take  us — to  the  apostles  and  the  commission.  This 
is  to  me  a  very  strange  method  of  procedure ;  I  am 
not  in  the  habit  of  tracing  things  to  their  fountain  by 
going  down  stream. 

But  I  know  the  reason  why  my  friend  did  not  trace 
trine  immersion  the  other  way.  It  is  because  it  ends, 
ill  that  direction,  with  TertuUian  There  is  no  stream, 
however  small,  to  be  found  between  TertuUian  and 
the  commission  as  given  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
In  going  toward  a  large  city  that  has  a  real  existence, 
while  still  at  a  great  distance  tlie  roads  may  not  be 
very  clear  nor  distinctly  marked  ;  but  as  we  draw 
nearer  and  nearer  the  city,  the  road  widens  out,  and 
there  is  no  mistaking  its  direction.     Not  so  in  travel- 


34  DEBATE  ON    TRINE  EVIMEKSION. 

ing  backward  from  the  present  liour  toward  the 
commission,  in  searcli  of  trine  immersion.  The  road 
becomes,  not  clearer  and  clearer,  but  more  and  more 
obscure,  till  at  last  we  have  to  stop  one  hundred  and 
seventy  years  this  side  of  the  commission ;  there  is  no 
trine  immersion  to  be  found  beyond  that. 

But  my  friend  quotes  Monulus,  who  says,  "  Ti'ine 
immersion  has  alwa^^s  been  with  us."  He  says  that 
Monulus,  in  a  speech  before  the  Council  of  Carthage, 
in  256,  traced  trine  immersion  back  to  the  commission. 
But  I  am  not  ready  to  accept  this  as  conclusive ;  I 
want  to  know  liow  he  traced  it  back.  Suppose  I  turn 
to  my  friend  here,  and  inquire  of  him  about  this  trine 
immersion.  He  replies,  "We  have  always  had  the 
doctrine  of  trine  immersion  with  us;  and  we  trace  it 
back  to  the  commission."  However  honest  and  truth- 
ful he  may  be,  I  dispute  the  correctness  of  his  asser- 
tion; and  I  would  dispute  the  point  with  Monulus  as 
soon  as  I  would  with  my  friend  here.  They  are  both 
but  human,  and  liable  to  err  upon  points  of  fact  or 
of  judgment.  But  let  Monulus,  or  TertuUian,  or 
Chrysostom,  or  Pelagius,  or  my  friend  here,  trace 
trine  immersion  back  and  find  it  in  the  commission, 
by  any  legitimate  examination  or  interpretation  of  the 
words  of  our  Saviour,  and  we  are  content;  we  will  cm- 
brace  the  doctrine  and  adopt  tlie  practice.  But  these 
gaps  won't  answer.  The  simple  assertion  of  Monulus, 
that  lie  finds  trine  immersion  in  the  commission,  docs 
not  satisfy  my  mind.  The  commission  is  there  upon 
the  record,  and  I  can  read  it  as  well  as  he  ;  and  I  am 
not  ready  to  accept  trine  immersion  as  being  con- 
tained in  the  commission,  unless  I  can  find  it  mjself, 
when  I  go  there. 

Coming  down  to  Winston,  a  modern  English  au- 
thor, we  are  treated  to  a  criticism  of  his  upon  the 
Greek  words  in  tlie  commission,  (//.v  lo  oiioma — which 
he  wouhl  translate,  ''  at  the  name,"  etc.     It'  I  were 


MR.    m'cONNKLL's    second    ADDRESS.  35 

discussing  uitli  a  man  who  was  anxious  to  prove 
spriiikUnij  to  be  tlie  proper  mode  of  immersion,  and 
he  slionld  translate  eis  to  hudoi\  "at  the  Avater,"'  I 
■\voukl  liave  known  what  to  think  ;  but  how,  in  this 
age,  an  immersionist,  with  the  standard  lexicons  be- 
fore him,  can  justify  this  transhition,  is  incomprehen- 
sible to  me.  Literally,  the  translation  is — and  I 
submit  the  matter  to  my  friend,  who  I  presume  is  ac- 
quainted with  Greek — not  "at,"  but  "into;"  "bap- 
tizing them  INTO  the  name  of  the  Father,"  etc.  I 
know  not  whether,  in  quoting  AVhiston,  my  friend 
intended  to  indorse  all  that  he  quoted  ;  but  I  wanted 
to  disabuse  your  minds  of  this  error  into  which  he 
hns  evidently  fallen.  I  think  that  he,  when  his  atten- 
tion is  directed  to  the  fact,  will  acknowledge  that  eis 
is  properly  translated,  not  by  "  at,"  but  "  into." 

With  this  thought  before  us,  I  remark  :  The  apos- 
tles were  commanded  to  make  disciples,  baptizing 
them  into  the  Father,  and  into  the  Son,  and  into  the 
Holy  Spirit.  This  they  did;  hence  those  whom. they 
baptized  Avere  addressed  as  being  in  God,  in  Christ, 
in  the  Holy  Spirit.  For  proof  of  this,  I  refer  you  to 
Acts,  chap,  xviii :  verse  8  :  "And  Crispus,  the  chief 
ruler  of  the  synagogue,  believed  on  the  Lord,  with  all 
his  house ;  and  niany  of  the  Corinthians  hearing, 
believed,  and  ivere  baptized."  Noav  turn  to  1  Cor.  i : 
1  and  2 :  "  Paul,  called  to  be  an  apostle  of  Jesus 
Christ,"  etc.,  "  unto  the  church  of  God  which  is  at 
Corinth,  to  them  that  are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus, 
called  to  be  saints,"  etc.  Also,  1  Thess.,  chap,  i : 
verse  1  :  "  Paul,  and  Silvanus,  and  Timotheus,  unto 
the  church  of  the  Thessalonians,  which  is  in  God  the 
Father,  and  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Romans,  chap, 
viii :  verse  9 :  "  But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the 
/Spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  you." 
Other  similar  passages  might  be  adduced,  in  which 
Ciiristians  are  said   to  be  in  God,  in  Christ,  in  the 


86  DEBATE  ON  TRINE   IMMERSION. 

Holy  Spirit.  And  these  three  Persons — Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Spirit — constitute  the  fulhiess  of  the  God- 
head. 

But  again  :  We  are  told  (Collos.,  ii  :  9,)  that  in 
Christ  *' dwelleth  all  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead  bod- 
ily," or  "  substantially,"  as  it  is  sometimes,  and  per- 
haps more  appropriately,  translated.  Now,  since  the 
fullness  of  the  Godhead — i.  e.,  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit — dwells  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  since  it  re- 
quires but  one  immersion,  according  to  the  Bible,  and 
to  my  friend,  to  introduce  a  man  into  Jesus  Christ, 
therefore  one  immersion  is  sufficient  to  introduce  a 
man  into  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead.  There  are 
numerous  other  proofs  that  lead  us  directly  to  the 
same  conclusion.  John,  chap,  x  :  verse  30  :  *'  I  and 
my  Father  are  one  ;  "  John,  chap,  xiv  :  verse  9  :  "  He 
that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father  ;"  verse  11 : 
*'  Believe  me,  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father 
in  me."  Then,  an  act  that  brings  a  man  into  the  Son, 
brings  him  into  the  Father ;  and  the  same  is  true  in 
like  manner  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  So  one  single  im- 
mersion fills  all  the  requirements  of  the  commission. 
I  leave  that  thought  with  you  for  the  present. 

Again,  my  friend,  if  not  in  his  own  remarks,  at 
least  in  his  quotations  from  Tertullian,  and  from 
Bishop  Beveridge,  and  perhaps  from  others,  seems  to 
claim,  or  at  least  to  intimate — and  if  he  does  not 
claim  it,  I  know  that  our  German  Baptist  brethren 
whom  he  represents,  generall^^  do — that  since  there 
are  three  separate  Persons  in  the  holy  trinity,  there 
must  be  three  separate  immersions  ;  one  immersion  in 
recognition  of  each  Person  :  that  by  the  first  immer- 
sion the  believer  is  introduced  into  the  Father,  by  the 
second  into  the  Son,  and  by  the  third,  into  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Accordingly,  he  who  has  been  but  once  im- 
mersed, is  in  the  Father,  but  not  in  Christ ;  while  a 
second  immersion  would  introduce  him  into  Christ, 


MIL    M'cuNNKLL's    SKCUM)    ADDllKSS.  37 

but  not  into  tlic  Holy  Spirit.  If  there  is  any  force 
at  all  in  my  friend's  mode  of  reasoning  npon  this  point, 
this  conclusion  is  inevitable.  But  look  at  the  Avords 
of  Christ  just  quoted,  and  tell  me  how  this  can  be? 
Paul  saj^s,  in  his  second  epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
chap,  v:  verse  19:  "God  was  in  Chrisl,  recon- 
ciling the  world  unto  himself."  Now,  if  the  Father 
is  in  the  Son,  how  can  a  man  be  brought  into  the 
Father  without  being  by  that  same  act  brought  into 
the  Son  ?  The  absurdity  of  this  position  may  be 
made  apparent,  further,  by  a  reference  to  the  state- 
ment of  John,  in  his  first  epistle,  chap,  ii  :  verse  28  : 
"Whosoever  denieth  the  Son,  the  same  hath  not  the 
Father  ;  but  he  that  acknowledgeth  the  Son  hath  the 
Father  also."  But  baptism  is  the  token  and  seal  of 
our  acknowledgment  of  God;  then  by  baptizing  into 
the  Son,  we  baptize  into  the  Father  also.  Again  : 
In  John's  gospel,  chap,  xiv  :  verse  6,  we  are  told  :  "  No 
man  cometh  unto  the  Father  but  by  me."  But  our 
Tonker  friends  immerse  into  the  Fathei'/rsf,  and  then 
into  the  Son — thereby  approaching  the  Son  through 
the  Father  ;  reversing  the  divine  order  in  the  matter. 
If  their  theory  upon  this  subject  is  right,  the  order 
in  which  they  perform  their  immersions  is  wrong,  and 
needs  to  be  remodeled. 

I  would  illustrate  my  idea  upon  this  point  in  this 
manner.  A  foreigner  wishes  to  become  a  citizen  of 
Iowa.  But  he  can  not  become  a  citizen  of  Iowa,  with- 
out entering  into  and  becoming  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  because  Iowa  is  a  part  of  the  nation  known  as 
the  United  States.  Now,  our  naturalization  to  God  is 
similar.  By  one  act  of  obedience — by  one  immersion, 
all  that  is  commanded — we  are  introduced  into  Jesus 
Christ,  and  by  that  same  act,  into  the  Father,  and  into 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  phrases,  "  in  Christ,"  "  in  God,"  "  in  the  Holy 
Spirit,"  so  frequently  used  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  in- 


38  DEBATE  ON   TRINE    IMMERSION. 

dicate  relationship.  To  be  baptized  into  them,  is  to 
be  introduced  into  a  n-ew  rehitionship  to  them.  It  is 
said  (I  Corin.  x  :  1,  2.)  that  the  Israelites  "  were  all 
baptized  [eis]  into  Moses,  in  the  cloud,  and  in  the 
sea."  Henceforth  they  were  in  a  new  relationship  to 
him  :  he  was  their  leader,  whom  they  were  commanded 
to  obey  in  all  things.  Paul,  in  his  epistle  to  the 
Galatians,  chap,  iii :  26,  27,  28,  tells  us  what  that  new 
relationship  is,  into  which  men  are  introduced  by  bap- 
tism :  "For  ye  are  all  the  children  of  Gody  by  faith 
in  Christ  Jesus  ;  for  as  many  of  you  as  have  been 
baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ ;  and  if  ye  be 
Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed  and  Jieirs^  accord- 
ing to  the  promise."  Thus  by  baptism  Ave  are  intro- 
duced into  a  new  relationship  with  the  divine  family ; 
we  are  constituted  sons  of  God,  brethren  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  partakers  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

But  it  is  objected  that,  since  by  baptism  we  change 
our  relative  position  in  reference  to  three  persons, 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  therefore 
three  acts  of  immersion  are  necessary.  But  this  is  a 
sheer  sophism,  which  will  not  stand  a  moment's  test 
at  the  bar  of  common  sense.  Let  me  illustrate.  I 
am  now  standing  with  my  face  to  the  west.  My  right 
hand  is  upon  the  north,  my  left  hand  upon  the  soutii, 
and  my  back  is  east.  Now,  I  propose  to  change  my 
relative  position  to  the  four  points  of  the  compass.  I 
turn  my  face  toward  the  north ;  and  by  that  one  act 
I  change  my  position,  not  only  in  relation  to  the  north, 
but  to  the  south,  the  east,  and  the  west.  So,  when  a 
believer  is  baptized  into  Christ,  his  relationship  is 
changed,  not  only  as  regards  Christ,  but  as  regards 
the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  church  and  the 
world,  by  that  one  act  of  baptism. 

I  proposed,  before  closing  the  argument  upon  this 
subject,  to  introduce  some  ideas  in  connection  wi.th 
TertuUian,  Chrysostom,  Pelagius,  Bishop  Beveridge, 


Wliiston,  etc.,  sliowing  tliat  these  same  men  have  held 
ami  tauglit,  and  chiimcd  to  trace  back  to  the  apostolic 
ai^e  and  to  the  Scriptures,  -doctrines  and  practices 
^^hich  neither  my  friend,  nor  any  one  else  in  this  nge, 
dare  pretend  are  tauglit  therein ;  and  that  therefore 
they  are  not  at  all  -worthy  of  our  confidence  in  the 
discussion  of  this  question.  But  as  my  time  has 
nearly  expired,  I  can  not  pursue  this  point  further  at 
present. 

I  desire  at  the  conclusion  of  this  first  half-day  of 
our  discussion,  to  say  that  I  am  truly  happy  at  the 
manner  in  which  the  discussion  is  being  conducted,  so 
far  as  regards  tlie  spirit  of  my  opponent,  and  the  in- 
terest and  attention  manifested  by  the  audience.  I 
hope  they  will  carefully  listen  to  our  arguments ;  and 
I  humbly  trust  our  remarks  may  be  such  that  our 
hearers  may  receive  instruction  and  benefit  from  them. 
We  are  as  yet  only  beginning ;  but  we  are  coming  to 
closer  quarters  by  and  by,  when  we  come  to  examine 
the  evidence  of  the  apostles,  and  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  instead  of  the  traditions  and  notions  of  men, 
with  which  your  attention  has  been  engaged  this 
morning.     \_Time  expired. 


[MR.  QUINTER'S  THIRD  ADDRESS.] 

Friendly  Moderators — In  resuming  this  discus- 
sion, I  am  pleased  to  say  that  my  feelings  wxre  in 
perfect  harmony  Avith  my  friend's,  when  he  expressed 
his  gratification  at  the  manner  in  which  our  discussion 
had  been  conducted  in  regard  to  each  other,  and  its 
reception  by  the  audience  ;  and  I  shall  try,  by  the 
help  of  the  Lord — which  I  hope  we  shall  all  have — 
to  continue  to  manifest  a  spirit  that  corresponds  with 
our  precious  and  blessed  Christianity. 

The  most  of  the  points  introduced  by  my  friend  in 


40  DEBATE    ON    TRINE    IMxMERSION. 

his  last  speech  will  be  reached,  and,  I  think,  covered 
by  the  argument  I  am  now  about  to  introduce  ;  and 
where  they  are  not  met  by  the  general  argument,  I 
can  the  more  appropriately  introduce  them  when  I 
shall  have  done  with  the  argument  which  I  am  now 
about  to  advance. 

III.  My  third  argument  in  behalf  of  trine  immer- 
sion 2vill  he  draivn  from  the  supposed  design  of  the 
2:)ecuUar  phraseology  of  the  formula. 

By  the  design  of  the  peculiar  phraseology  of  the 
formula,  I  refer,  not  to  the  design  of  baptism,  but  the 
design  of  the  language  used  in  commanding  it :  "  In 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit/' 

The  three  names — the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit — being  given  in  the  formula,  a  distinction 
between  the  three  characters  which  those  three  names 
represent  is  evidently  taught,  and  the  importance  of 
each  character  in  the  great  work  of  redemption  is  fully 
recognized  and  to  be  impressed  upon  the  baptized 
believer.  And  as  these  names  designate  the  three 
characters  to  which  they  belong,  it  is,  in  reality,  into 
the  three  characters  themselves — the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit — that  believers  are  baptized. 
With  the  distinction  and  plurality  of  names  correspond 
the  distinction  and  plurality  of  characters;  and  with 
these  should  correspond  the  distinction  and  plurality 
of  actions  in  administering  Christian  baptism  accord- 
ing to  the  formula  given  by  Christ.  This  formula 
was,  Avithout  doubt,  designed  to  convey  to  the  mind 
the  idea  that  there  is  a  distinction  between  the  three 
characters  named,  and  that  they  are  all  engaged  to 
encourage,  to  further,  and  to  secure  the  salvation  of 
the  believer. 

Dr.  Adam  Clark,  in  remarking  upon  the  formula  of 
baptism  as  contained  in  the  commission,  says:  *'Is  it 


Mil.    (iUINTEu'S    THIRD    ADDRESS.  41 

possible  for  words  to  convey  a  plainer  sense  than  those 
do?  And  do  they  not  direct  every  reader  to  consider 
the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  lloly  Spirit,  as  three 
distinct  Persons?"  It  is  Dr.  Clarke's  positive  declar- 
ation relative  to  the  distinction  of  cliaracters,  that  I 
want  noticed.  [Commentary  on  Matthew,  chap,  xxviii : 
verse  19.] 

Simeon,  another  eminent  writer,  says:  "The 
Fatlier,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  here  distinctly 
mentioned.  They  are  all  mentioned  in  the  same 
manner,  and  for  the  same  end.  Whatsoever  is  meant 
by  'the  name  of  the  Father,  must  be  understood  also 
in  reference  to  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost."  [Si- 
meon's Works,  Vol.  V,  p.  126.] 

Dr.  Doddridge,  in  his  "Expositor,"  in  commenting 
on  the  language  of  the  commission,  says :  "  *  * 
that  by  this  solemn  initiatory  ordinance  they  may 
profess  their  subjection  to  each  of  these  divine  Per- 
sons, and,  maintaining  suitable  regard  to  each^  may 
receive  from  each  correspondent  blessings."  By 
using  the  word  "  each"  he  evidently  recognizes  a  dis- 
tinction in  the  three  characters,  and  teaches  that 
special  attention  should  be  given  to  them  in  pursuance 
of  that  distinction.  Every  English  scholar  knows 
that  the  word  "  each  "  refers  to  a  number  of  persons 
or  things  taken  separately,  or  one  by  one.  Wlien 
reference  is  made  in  such  lancruaoje  as  this  to  each  of 

CO 

the  characters  named  in  the  formula,  it  is  understood 
that  they  are  to  be  recognized  as  separate,  and  con- 
sidered separately^. 

Dr.  Burns,  of  London,  in  a  sermon  on  Matthew, 
xxviii:  19,  entitled,  "The  Distinctions  in  the  God- 
head," uses  the  following  language  :  "  But  the  phrase- 
ology employed  obviously  presents  the  one  Jehovah 
under  certain  distinctions,  involving  the  idea  of  a 
plurality  in  the  Godhead." 

These  high  authorities,  then,  to  say  nothing  of 


42  dp:bate  on  think  immkhsion. 

numerous  otliers,  amply  justify  us  in  tile  belief  that 
the-  phraseology  used  in  the  commission  does  repre- 
sent a  distinction  in  the  characters  that  constitute  the 
Divinity,  or  Godhead  ;  that  it  Avas  the  design  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  instituting  the  ordinance  of 
b;iptism,  that  this  distinction  should  be  plainly  re- 
vealed, and  by  the  act  of  baptism  fully  recognized, 
and  strongly  impressed  upon  the  mind  of  the  believer. 
And  I  maintain  that  this  purpose  is  better  accom- 
plished by  an  immersion  into  each  name  and  each  char- 
acter, than  by  but  a  single  immersion. 

When  the  Saviour  gave  to  his  disciples  the  institu- 
tion by  which  they  were  to  commemorate  his  death, 
he  selected  two  symbols,  the  bread  and  the  wine  ;  the 
one  to  represent  his  body,  the  other  his  blood.  Now, 
whatever  union  existed  between  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  (and  certainly  there  was  a  very  intimate 
union),  he  designed  that  when  his  disciples  would 
commemorate  his  death,  they  should  make  a  distinc- 
tion between  the  two,  to  show  that  while  his  body  was 
broken  for  them,  his  blood  was  also  shed  for  them. 
This  I  want  noticed,  for  I  think  the  thought  is  worthy 
of  consideration.  When  the  Saviour  took  the  bread, 
and  gave  it  to  his  disciples  as  the  representative  of 
his  body,  if  that  bread  properly  represented  his  body, 
it  must  have  represented  his  blood  also,  for  there  can 
not,  from  the  very  nature  of  things,  be  a  living  body 
where  there  is  no  blood.  His  blood,  then,  must  have 
been  implied  in  that  which  was  given  as  the  represent- 
ation of  his  bod};-.  But  for  some  wise  reasons — what 
they  were  1  attempt  not  to  conjecture — he  wanted  his 
disciples  to  especially  notice  iiis  blood  as  separate 
from  his  body;  consequently  he  selected  two  symbols, 
one  to  represent  his  body,  the  other  his  blood.  There 
was  at  once  a  unity  and  a  plurality  there;  and,  in  es- 
tablishing that  ordinance — the  communion — he  wished 
the  plurality  and  the  distinction  to  be  plainly  rccog- 


MH.    qriNTKu's    THIIM)    ADDIlKSo.  43 

nizod  ;  licncc  he  selected  the  two  symbols.  So,  what- 
ever union  exists  amoni:;  the  divine  characters — tho 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit — baptism,  admin- 
istered according  to  the  formula,  was  designed  to 
show  a  distinction  in  those  characters,  that  the  per- 
sons baptized  may  properly  appreciate  their  need  of 
the  Fa  tiler,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  living  a 
Christian  life.  And  while  a  distinction  is  to  be  shown, 
faith  in  each  is  to  be  professed,  and  each  honored. 
This  is  plainly  and  impressively  done  by  the  three 
actions,  or  the  tliree  immersions,  in  baptism. 

The  searching,  reflecting,  and  enlightened  mind, 
Avill  not  fail  to  perceive  the  striking  resemblance  there 
is  between  the  baptism  of  Christ  himself  and  that 
which  he  has  instituted  for  his  followers.  And  this 
will  not  appear  so  strange,  Avlien  we  consider  that  he 
Avas  not  baptized  so  much  for  himself  as  for  us — for 
our  example.  At  the  baptism  of  Christ,  all  the  divine 
characters  which  are  named  in  the  formula  for  ad- 
ministering Christian  baptism  were  clearly  manifested. 
The  Son  was  in  Jordan,  receiving  baptism  from  John  ; 
the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  form  of  a  dove,  Avas  seen  de- 
scending and  lighting  upon  the  Saviour,  and  the  Father, 
from  his  throne  in  the  heavens,  spake  and  said: 
"  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased." 

Dr.  Stier,  in  his  "  Words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  says: 
"  The  baptism  appointed  by  Christ  manifestly  refers 
back  to  the  symbolical  b.iptism  which  Christ  himself 
received  in  the  Jordan;  for,  as  there  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost  were  first  fully  revealed  in  their 
sacred  trinity,  so  now  disciples  were  to  be  baptized 
unto  or  into  the  name — not  merely  of  the  Father  who 
then  bore  witness,  not  merely  of  the  Son  who  then 
received  the  witness  that  he  was  the  Son — but  also 
most  perfectly  into  the  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 
[Stier  ou  Matthew,  xxviii :  19.] 

What  is  plainer  in  this  scene  at  the  river  Jordan 


44  DEBATE    ON   TIUNE    IMxMERSION. 

than  that  the  three  sacred  characters  which  were  there 
manifested  were  distinct  from  one  another?  And  this 
distinction  is  evidently  designed  to  be  taught  in  the 
formula  of  baptism  contained  in  the  commission. 
Then,  as  there  are  three  distinct  names,  expressive 
of  three  distinct  ngents  or  characters,  mentioned  in 
the  commission,  into  each  of  which  the  believer  is  to 
be  bnptized,  and  as  the  formula  for  administering 
Christian  baptism  was  designed  to  bring  distinctly 
before  the  mind  the  three  divine  characters  named, 
trine  immersion,  or  three  actions  in  baptism,  very 
clearly  shows  the  distinction  between  those  characters 
which  it  is  thought  the  words  in  the  commission,  to  be 
used  in  administering  baptism,  were  designed  to  show. 
Believers  are  to  be  baptized  into  the  distinct  name  of 
the  Father,  and  in  trine  immersion  they  are  thus  bap- 
tized. They  are  likewise  to  be  baptized  into  the  dis- 
tinct name  of  the  Son,  and  in  trine  immersion  they 
are  thus  baptized.  They  are  finally  to  be  baptized 
into  the  distinct  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  this 
also  is  done.  And  thus  do  trine  immersionists  ob- 
serve the  command  of  Christ  contained  in  the  formula 
for  administering  baptism,  strictly  and  literally.  They 
fulfill  the  design  and  the  letter  of  the  formula. 

And  as  the  formula  for  administering  baptism  re- 
quires believers  to  be  baptized  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  into  the  name  of  the  Son,  and  into  the 
name  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  into  three  distinct  char- 
acters or  personal  agents,  hence  Christians  are  repre- 
sented in  the  Scripture  as  being  in  the  Father,  and  in 
the  Son,  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  I  John,  ii :  24  :  "  If 
that  which  ye  have  heard  from  the  beginning  shall 
remain  in  you,  ye  also  shall  continue  in  the  Son,  and 
in  the  Father."  Here  it  will  be  observed  that  there 
is  the  same  distinction  between  the  Father  and  the 
Son  that  there  is  in  the  baptismal  f  )rmula.  Again  : 
Galatians,  v:  25  :  "  If  wc  live  in  the  Spirit,  let  us  also 


MR.  quixti:k\s  TiiruD  address.  45 

walk  in  tlie  Spirit."  From  these  distinctions,  so  fre- 
qiiontlv  recognized  in  tlie  divine  Word,  it  appears  to 
nie  that  three  actions  in  hnptism — three  immersions, 
one  into  the  name  of  the  Fatlier,  one  into  the  name 
of  the  Son,  a!id  one  into  tlie  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit — 
are  more  in  harmony  with  the  requirements  of  the 
formula,  and  better  express  what  that  formula  was 
cviilently  designed  to  convey,  than  one  immersion. 

It  is  true  that  different  names  are  sometimes  ap- 
plied to  the  same  character,  and  are  somewhat  indis- 
criminately used.  For  instance,  the  name  "  Father'* 
is  applied  to  the  Son  by  Isaiah,  chap,  ix :  verse  6: 
*'His  name  shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counselor, 
The  Mighty  God,  The  Everhisting  Father,"  etc.  And 
the  term  "Spirit"  is  sometimes  applied  to  God,  as  in 
John,  iv:  24:  "God  is  a  Spirit,"  etc.  But  though 
the  terms  are  sometimes  used  indiscriminately,  so  that 
the  distinction  can  not  always  be  inferred  from  the 
names  simply,  yet,  when  the  three  names  are  brought 
into  connection,  as  they  are  in  the  commission,  with 
the  distinction  plainly  and  clearly  set  forth,  so  that 
there  is  no  chance  for  misapprehension,  I  contend 
that  such  distinction  should  be  recognized.  And  as 
a  practical  recognition  of  that  distinction,  we  claim 
that  trine  immersion  better  harmonizes  with  the  lan- 
guage of  the  formula  than  where  there  is  but  one 
immersion. 

In  the  Divinity,  or  Godhead,  there  is  a  plurality, 
and  there  is  a  unity.  I  do  not  know  that  any  of  us 
will  deny  this.  I  presume  my  friend  will  accept  it. 
Tliis  distinction  in  the  Godhead  has  been  stated  by 
Alexander  Campbell,  as  follows  : 

"No  one  believes  more  firmly  than  I — and  no  one, 
I  presume,  endeavors  to  teach  more  distinctly  and 
comprehensively  than  I — this  mysterious,  sublime, 
and  incomprehensible  plurality  and  unity  in  the  God- 
head.    It  is  a  relation  that  may  be  apprehended  hj 


46  DEBATE    ON    TRINE   IMMERSION. 

all,  though  comprehended  by  none.  -K  ^  >i^  ]3ut^ 
while  avowing  these  iny  convictions,  I  have  no  more 
fellowship  with  those  false  and  pernicious  theories 
that  confound  the  peculiar  work  of  the  Father  with 
that  of  the  Son,  or  with  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or 
that  of  any  of  these  awful  names  with  that  of  another, 
or  which  represent  our  illumination,  conversion,  and 
sanctificntion  as  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  without  the 
knowledge,  belief,  and  obedience  of  the  Gospel,  as 
Avritten  by  the  holy  apostles  and  evangelists,  than  I 
have  with  the  author  and  finisher  of  the  Book  of 
Mormons. 

"  The  revelation  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  is 
not  more  clear  and  distinct  than  are  the  different 
offices  assumed  and  performed  by  these  glorious  and 
ineffable  Three  in  the  present  affairs  of  the  universe. 
It  is  true,  so  far  as  unity  of  design  and  concurrence 
of  action  are  contemplated,  they  co-operate  in  every 
work  of  creation,  providence,  and  redemption.  Such 
is  the  concurrence  expressed  by  the  Messiah  in  these 
words:  'My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work;' 
*I  and  my  Father  are  one;'  'What  things  soever 
he  (the  Father)  doeth,  these  also  doeth  the  Son  like- 
wise;' but  not  such  a  concurrence  as  annuls  person- 
ality, impairs  or  interferes  with  the  distinct  office  of 
each  in  the  salvation  of  man.  For  example:  the 
Father  sends  the  Son,  and  not  the  Son  the  Father; 
the  Father  provides  a  body  and  soul  for  his  Son,  and 
not  the  Son  for  his  Father;  the  Son  offers  that  l)ody 
and  soul  for  sin,  and  thus  expiates  it,  which  the  Father 
does  not,  but  accepts  it;  the  Father  and  the  Son  send 
forth  the  Spirit,  and  not  the  Spirit  either;  the  Si)irit 
now  advocates  Christ's  cause,  and  not  Christ  his  own 
cause.  The  Holy  Spirit  now  animates  the  Church 
with  its  presence,  and  not  Christ  hiniself.  He  is  tiie 
Head  of  the  Chui'ch,  while  the  Spirit  is  the  Heart  of 
it.     The  Father  originates  all,  the  Sou  executes  all, 


MR.    QUINTKK'S    TIIIllD    ADDRESS.  47 

the  Spirit  consiimmates  all.  Eternal  volition,  design, 
and  mission,  belonor  to  the  Father;  reconciliation  to 
the  Son  ;  sanctification  to  the  Spirit."  [Campbell  on 
Baptism,  pp.  281),  290.] 

Now,  in  our  mode  of  immersion — in  trine  immer- 
sion— this  plurality  and  unity  in  the  Godhead  are 
strikingly  illustrated,  harmonizing  beautifully  with 
the  character  of  the  Divinity.  There  are  the  three 
names  and  three  offices  in  the  one  Godhead ;  there 
are  three  actions,  or  three  immersions,  in  one  bap- 
tism. It  may  be  difficult  to  comprehend  this  unity 
and  plurality  in  the  Godhead,  and  we  expect  to  hear 
something  of  this  difficulty,  and,  when  it  comes  up,  I 
will  try  at  least  to  help  you  get  a  Bible  view  of  the 
matter,  though  we  may  not  be  able  to  fully  fathom 
the  mysteries  of  the  Divinity. 

I  shall  take  the  opportunity  here — as  I  want  to  take 
it  somewhere — of  showing  that  the  doctrine  of  trine 
immersion  has  nothing  to  do  with  any  peculiar  doc- 
trines of  the  trinity,  or  with  any  peculiar  views  that 
are  entertained  in  the  Christian  world  relative  to  the 
trinity,  or  what  is  commonly  known  as  the  trinitarian 
doctrine,  in  contradistinction  to  the  Arian  or  unitarian 
doctrine.  It  sometimes  has  been  saiil,  by  persons  not 
very  well  acquainted  with  the  matter,  that  we,  in  our 
trine  immersion,  "  divide  the  Godhead."  Now,  these 
trinitarians  whom  I  have  quoted,  make  the  same  dis- 
tinction between  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  make  it  just  as  emphatically,  as  we  do. 
(Clarke's  orthodoxy  on  the  subject  of  Trinitarianism 
may  be  doubted ;  but  that  of  Doddridge,  and  the 
others  quoted,  will  not  be.)  When  we  acknowledge 
three  characters  in  the  Godhead,  we  acknowledge  only 
what  the  Christian  world  acknowledges.  I  say  the 
whole  Christian  world  acknowledges  three  characters 
in  the  Godhead.  Some  make  tlic.n  three  persons, 
equal  in  power,  and  say,  God  the  Father,  God  the 


48  DEBATE   ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

Son,  God  the  Holy  Spirit.  Others  make  the  Son  and 
Spirit  inferior  to  the  Father,  and  deny  personality  to 
the  Spirit;  but  these  points  are  not  necessarily  in- 
volved in  this  discussion,  and,  I  hope,  will  not  come 
up.  But  the  three-fold  character  of  the  Godhead, 
which  the  whole  Christian  world  acknowledges,  is  all 
we  show  in  our  baptism.  Any  peculiar  doctrines 
concerning  the  trinity,  have  nothing  to  do  with  it. 
Trinitarians  and  Arians,  in  different  ages,  have  alike 
performed  trine  immersion,  and  have  alike  baptized 
by  single  immersion. 

My  friend,  in  his  last  speech,  remarked  that,  as  we 
approach  God  only  through  Christ,  it  would  seem  to 
be  more  in  place  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  Christ 
first.  Now,  I  would  remind  him,  and  you  all,  that 
"  no  man  can  come  to  Christ  except  the  Father  draw 
him."  (John,  vi :  44.)  There  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
great  work  of  our  redemption  begins  with  the  Father, 
where  our  baptism  begins,  ^'  in  the  name  of  the 
Father." 

Much  that  my  friend  said  in  regard  to  the  peculiar 
relationship  between  the  three  characters  of  the  God- 
head, I  cordially  accept.  But  while  believing  that 
there  is  a  unity,  a  union,  a  oneness,  Ave  also  believe 
that  there  is  a  plurality  and  a  distinction — a  distinction 
which,  under  some  circumstances  and  in  some  places, 
is  so  clearly  pointed  out,  so  particularly  set  forth,  so 
emphatically  insisted  upon,  as  to  demand  recognition 
and  observance.  Such  Ave  claim  to  be  the  fact  in  the 
case  before  us.  Whatever  union  exists  in  the  tliree 
characters  of  the  Godhead  as  found  elscAvhere  in  the 
Bible,  it  is  pluralUf/  as  found  in  the  commission.  The 
three  characters  are  separately  named,  and  Ave  are 
commanded  to  baptize  the  believer  into  each  ;  and 
this  we  do  by  a  trinity  of  action — by  trine  immer- 
sion.    \_Time  expired. 


MR.  m'coxnell's  tiiikd  addrkss.  49 

[MK.  McCONNELL'S  TIIIKD  ADDRESS.] 

Moderators  and  Friknds — I  will  comTnence  just 
wliore  my  friend  quit,  and  call  your  attention  to  the 
last  assertion  he  made  :  ''  Wliatever  union  exists  in 
tlie  three  characters  of  the  Godhead  as  found  else- 
where in  the  Bible,  it  is  ijluralitif  as  found  in  the  com- 
mimony  Therefore,  he  assumes,  that  plurality  must 
be  shown  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  hence 
trine  immersion.  Now,  this  assertion  will  not  pass 
current  with  me,  however  it  may  be  with  you.  No 
disputed  point  can  be  settled  by  taking  the  very  point 
in  dispute  as  a  basis  upon  which  to  ground  an  argu- 
ment. The  question  so  summarily  disposed  of  by  my 
friend,  is  the  very  question  in  dispute  between  us ; 
and  t1  '•  ..i-guraent  to  which  he  proposed  to  reply,  was 
an  eft'.  .  i  to  show  that  the  commission  involved  the 
idea,  no*:  of  simple  plurality,  but  of  plurality  in  unity. 
His  bare  assertion,  therefore,  is  not  sufficient  to  set 
aside  that  argument,  based  upon  this  recognized  unity 
to  be  found  everywhere  throughout  the  Scriptures. 
We  do  not  deny  that  plurality  is  found  in  unity  ;  it 
is  the  very  thing  indeed  that  we  claim :  but  where  we 
have  plurality  in  unity,  and  that,  too,  involving  the 
idea  of  distinction,  we  do  not  necessarily  have  the 
idea  of  division  and  separaiioyi.  In  man  we  find 
plurality  in  unity,  and  a  distinction  of  body,  soul  and 
spirit;  but  they  are  not  separated;  they  are  united, 
forming  one  man.  The  argument,  therefore,  of  my 
friend,  based  upon  the  idea  that  where  there  is  a  dis- 
tinction there  is  necessarily  a  reparation,  and  that,  in 
order  to  recognize  or  represent  that  separation  there 
must  be  several  separate  acts,  falls  to  the  ground. 

And  this  leads  me  back  to  the  argument  based  by 
my  friend  upon  the  symbols  employed  in  the  com- 
munion. There  are  two  symbols  emplo^^ed  in  the 
communion — the  bread  and  the  wine ;  the  bread  rep- 
4 


50  DEBATE    ON    THINE   IMMERSION. 

resenting  the  body,  and  the  wine  the  blood,  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Now,  there  is  a  plurality  and  a 
unity — flesh  and  blood  representing  one  body — in  the 
living  man ;  but  let  me  ask  you,  what  was  the  object 
contemplated  by  our  Saviour  in  selecting  these  two 
symbols?  Was  it  not  specially  designed  to  show  the 
plurality  in  unity— the  distinction  and  the  separalion 
of  the  component  elements?  "As  often  as  ye  eat 
this  bread  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  the  Lord's 
death,  till  he  come."  And  in  death  there  is  a  separa- 
tion between  the  body  and  the  blood ;  hence  two  sep- 
arate symbols.  If  my  friend  proposes  to  prove  that 
the  purpose  of 'the  commission  was  to  show  that  the 
Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  as  com- 
pletely separated  from  each  other  in  the  great  work 
of  human  salvation  as  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Jesus 
were  in  his  death,  we  will  hear  him  upon  that  subject. 
And  when  that  is  accomplished,  there  may  be  some 
relevancy  in  his  argument  based  upon  the  two  sym- 
bols, the  bread  and  the  wine — but  not  till  then. 

My  friend  continues  to  insist  that  as  there  are  three 
persons  in  the  Godhead,  it  is  necessary  that  the  be- 
liever should  be  baptized  into  each  person.  I  think 
■what  I  have  heretofore  said  must  have  made  it  clear 
to  every  discerning  mind  that  this  is  not  necessarily 
true.  We  can  find  at  every  turn  illustrations  to  show 
the  sophism  that  lies  hidden  in  this  assumption.  For 
instance:  a  child  is  born  into  the  world;  it  is  bora 
into  the  United  States;  it  is  born  into  the  State  of 
Iowa.  Does  this  require  three  births — first  into  the 
world,  secondly  into  the  Union,  and  lastly  into  the 
State?  Will  not  one  bii-th  accomplish  the  wdiole? 
Certainly  it  will.  Now,  God  the  Father,  and  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  so  associated  together  that 
the  fullness  of  the  Goilhead  resides  in  Jesus  Christ 
bodily ;  hence  an  immersion  into  one  is  an  immers^ion 
into  ali. 


Mil.    M  C0\NKI,T/S    TIIIIU)    ADDTir??.  l)\ 

My  friend  roiiiarks,  or  (piotos  with  liis  indorsement 
the  romnrk,  that  in  tlie  coniniis.sion  the  tlirec  charac- 
ters of  the  Godliead  "  are  all  mentioned  in  the  same 
manner,  and  for  the  same  end ;  that  whatsoever  is 
meant  by  '  the  name  of  the  Father,  must  be  understood 
also  in  reference  to  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Very  well,  we  grant  that  the  force  of  the  expression 
*  the  name  of  is  the  same  in  each  case.  We  grant 
also  his  further  explanation  :  that  by  this  formula 
the  believer  is  baptized  info  suhjcclion  to  the  Father, 
and  the  Son,  and  the  lloly  Spirit.  But  let  us  se« 
whether  there  is  an^'thing  in  this  to  sustain  his  po- 
sition. Jesus  prefaced  his  commission  with  these 
words  (Matt.,  xxviii :  18):  "All  power  [exousia, 
authority,]  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth." 
Then,  when  the  believer,  being  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ,  places  himself  in  subjection  to  him,  he  is  in 
subjection  to  all  authority,  which  includes  that  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  So  the  point  we  con- 
tend for  is  gained  upon  his  own  interpretation  of  the 
commission. 

My  friend  spent  considerable  time  in  commenting 
upon  the  definition  of  the  word  "  each,"  explaining 
that  it  meant  every  one  of  a  number  of  persons  or 
things,  taken  separately.  This  explanation,  and  the 
argument  built  thereon,  would  have  been  in  place,  but 
for  the  unfortunate  fact  that  the  word  "  each"  is  not 
in  the  commission,  but  in  the  remarks  of  some  com- 
mentator upon  it.  As  we  are  not  now  weighing  the 
language  of  commentators,  but  of  the  commission,  I 
do  not  see  that  this  portion  of  my  friend's  argument 
reaches  the  point  in  dispute,  or  calls  for  any  particular 
reply. 

Our  attention  is  called  to  the  baptism  of  Christ.  Wo 
are  told,  and  I  am  willing  to  accept  it  as  a  truth,  that 
his  baptism  was  a  model  of  Christian  baptism  ;  that 
"vv'e  should  baptise  in  the  same  manner  in  which  Christ 


52  DEBATE    ON    TRINE    IMMERSION. 

was  baptized.  That,  too,  we  will  not  deny.  We  are 
furthermore  told  that  at  Christ's  baptism  all  of  the 
divine  characters  which  are  named  in  the  formula 
for  administering  Christian  baptism  were  present  and 
clearly  manifested.  This,  too,  Ave  grant ;  but  may  we 
be  permitted  to  remark  that  only  one  of  them  was 
baptized.  We  are  told  by  my  friend,  and  by  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  that  the  Father  then  acknowledged  Christ 
as  his  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  pointed  him  out. 
There  is  only  one  thing  lacking  to  prove  my  friend's 
position,  but  that  one  thing  is  fatal  to  his  entire  ar- 
gument :  Was  Christ  baptized  three  times  ?  If  he  can 
show  that,  he  will  sustain  his  position.  Let  him  bring 
the  proof,  if  it  is  anywhere  to  be  found. 

As  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus  in  Jordan,  so  at  the 
baptism  of  every  penitent  believer  :  We  are  buried 
with  Christ,  are  cleansed  from  our  sins,  and  rise  to 
newness  of  life  ;  God  acknowledges  us  as  his  children, 
the  Holy  Spirit  takes  possession  of  our  hearts,  and 
we  are  designated  as  the  sons  and  daughters  of  Al- 
mighty God.  But  it  tcikes  only  one  act  to  bring  us 
to  Jesus  Christ;  and  when  that  is  accomplished,  the 
Father  will  acknowledge  us  as  members  of  the  heav- 
enly family,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  will  come  and  take 
up  his  abode  with  us.  Hence,  Peter  said  (Acts,  ii : 
38)  :  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you, 
in  the  name  of  Jesiis  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Not  a  word  about  trine  immersion  here ! 

My  friend  remarks  that  in  all  the  Holy  Scriptures 
there  is  no  one  thing  plainer  than,  that  there  is  a  clear 
distinction  between  the  three  characters  distinguished 
by  the  three  names  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  tlie  Holy 
Spirit.  I  grant  that,  cheerfully.  But  upon  this  prem- 
ise he  builds  an  argument  that  since  there  are  three 
characters  there  must  necessarily  be  three  immersions. 
I  fail  to  see  the  connection  between  his  premise  and 


MK.    m'cONXELL'S    third    ADDRESS.  53 

his  conclusion.  I  will  call  your  attention  to  a  pas- 
saf^e  that  will  illustrate  my  idea.  I  read  in  the  testi- 
mony of  Matthew  (chap,  viii :  verse  2),  "And  I  say 
unto  you  that  many  shall  come  from  the  east  and  west, 
and  shall  sit  down  with  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and 
Jacob,  in  the  King<iom  of  heaven."  Now,  there  is 
nothing  plainer  than  that  there  is  a  clear  distinction 
between  the  three  persons,  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and 
Jacob.  And  according  to  my  friend's  logic,  those  who 
come  from  the  east  and  from  the  west  must  sit  down 
three  tlme^ :  must  first  sit  down  with  Abraham;  then 
rise  up,  and  sit  down  a  second  time,  with  Isaac;  then 
rise  again,  and  sit  down  a  third  time,  with  Jacob.  But 
as  I  do  not  accept  my  friend's  reasoning,  I  do  not 
consider  so  much  rising  up  and  sitting  down  to  be 
necessary. 

My  friend  quoted  several  passages  in  proof  of  the 
distinction  in  the  characters  of  the  Godhead.  He 
read  from  the  24th  verse  of  the  second  chapter  of 
John's  first  letter  :  "  If  that  which  ye  have  heard 
from  the  beginning  shall  remain  in  you,  ye  also  shall 
continue  in  the  Son,  and  in  the  Father."  Yes,  there 
is  a  distinction  made;  but  I  can  not  see, how  it  helps 
my  friend  in  this  matter  of  trine  immersion.  "  Ye 
also  shall  continue  in  the  Son,  and  in  the  Father;" 
does  that  render  necessary  two  distinct,  separate,  in- 
dependent continuings — first,  a  continuing  in  the  Son, 
and  when  that  shall  have  ceased,  another  continuing, 
in  the  Father  ?  How  a  man  can  thus  continue,  and 
cease  to  continue,  and  again  commence  continuing, 
and  thus  alternately  continue  and  discontinue  contin- 
uing, as  my  friend's  logic  would  require,  is  difficult 
for  me  to  comprehend. 

He  also  refers  us,  in  proof  of  the  distinction  in  the 
characters  of  the  Godhead,  to  Galatians,  v :  25  :  "If 
we  live  in  the  Spirit,  let  us  also  walk  in  the  Spirit." 
But  can  a  man  walk  in   the  Spirit,  and  not  walk  in 


54  DEBATE    ON   TRINE  IMMERSION. 

God?  Entirely  impossible.  He  will  not  presume  to 
answer  tlmt  question  in  the  affirmative.  Yet,  if  I 
understand  what  my  friend  is  aiming  at,  he  would 
show  by  this  text  that  when  a  believer  is  baptized  into 
the  Spirit  he  is  not  baptized  into  God,  but  needs  two 
other  immersions — one  into  the  Father,  and  one  into 
the  Son. 

Finally,  my  friend  says  it  does  not  follow  after  all 
that  there  is  always  a  distinction  to  be  observed  in 
accordance  with  the  names  employed,  as  they  are  some- 
times applied  indiscriminately — the  Son  being  called 
"The  Everlasting  Father,"  and  God  himself  having 
the  term  ''  Spirit"  applied  to  him.  He  thus  destroys 
the  distinction  he  has  all  alonor  been  endeavorinf]:  to 
establish  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt;  and  thus 
there  is  at  once  an  end  of  the  argument  for  trine  im- 
mersion based  upon  the  distinction  of  characters 
named  in  the  formula. 

I  was  a  little  astonished  at  one  thing  my  friend  said, 
viz  :  that  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  had  nothing  to 
do  with  trine  immersion.  That,  I  say,  seemed  a  little 
strange  to  me,  when  his  whole  effort,  if  I  have  un- 
derstood him  correctly,  has  been  to  base  trine  immer- 
sion on  the  doctine  of  the  trinity.  If  the  doctrine 
of  the  trinity  has  nothing  to  do  with  trine  immersion, 
why  has  my  friend  been  insisting  upon  discussing  it 
here,  and  bringing  up  quotations  from  Scripture  and 
from  eminent  men  to  prove  the  distinction  between 
the  three  Persons,  or  characters  in  the  Godhead  ? 

There  are  three  distinct  characters.  AVe  admit  that. 
The  argument  is,  that  there  must  be  three  distinct 
actions.  Well,  what  bearing  does  that  have  on  trine 
immersion?  If  there  is  a  distinction,  must  there  not 
be  a  difterencc?  Or  is  this  a  case  where  there  is  ''  a 
distinction  without  a  dift'erence?"  The  distinct,  dif- 
ferent Persons  arc,  the  Father,  the  Son,  the  Holy 
Spirit.     What  next?     Why,  according   to   the   close 


MR.    m'CONNELL'S   third    ADDRESS.  55 

analogy  insisted  upon  by  my  friend,  the  actionR  refer- 
ring to  tliem  must  be  as  distinct  and  different  as  the 
persons.  But  he  wouUl  ha\'e  us  perform,  not  different 
actions,  but  the  same  action.  So  the  analogy  they 
insist  upon  is  not  carried  b}^  himself;  and  the  point 
at  which  they  aim  is  not  gained,  after  all. 

But  in  one  immersion  we  have  three  actions  ;  and 
these  are  distinct — different,  and  not  the  same.  In  the 
Godhead  there  are  the  three  characters — the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit;  in  one  baptism  are  the 
three  actions — the  burial,  the  quickening,  the  resurrec- 
tion. There  is  a  beautiful  analogy  here,  teaching  an 
impressive  lesson,  which  I  can  not  find  in  trine  im- 
mersion. 

It  is  argued — I  do  not  recollect  that  my  friend  has 
yet  referred  to  it,  but  I  know  that  it  is  generally  urged 
in  the  discussion  of  this  question — that  in  baptism 
we  honor  him  into  whose  name  we  are  baptized.  This 
we  will  grant,  at  once.  Then,  say  our  trine  immer- 
sionist  friends,  is  it  not  clear  that  equal  honor  is  due 
to  each  of  the  three,  and  therefore  we  should  be  three 
times  immersed  ?  Let  us  see  if  that  follows.  Who- 
ever makes  confession  of  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  honors 
him.  But  ought  we  therefore  to  make  three  formal 
confessions  of  faith — first  a  confession  of  faith  in  the 
Father,  then  a  confession  of  faith  in  the  Son,  and 
lastly,  a  confession  of  faith  in  the  Holy  Spirit?  But 
let  us  look  at  the  matter  in  another  light.  When  a 
man  is  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  the 
Father  is  honored,  but  the  Son  is  not ;  else  there  is 
no  use  in  the  second  baptism.  And  when  a  man  is 
baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Son,  the  Son  is  honored, 
but  the  Father  is  not ;  else  the  Father  receives  double 
honor.  And  Christ  says  "  That  all  men  should  honor 
the  Son  even  as  they  honor  the  Father"  (John,  v: 
23).  And  if  it  requires  a  repetition  of  the  act  that 
each  may  be  honored,  then  only  one  is  honored  in  the 


56  DEBATE    ON    TRINE    mMERSION. 

first  act ;  and  as  the  first  act  is  performed  in  tne  name 
of  the  Father,  he,  and  not  the  Son,  is  honored.  Eat 
Christ  says,  ''  He  that  honoreth  not  the  Son  honoreth 
not  the  Father  which  hath  sent  him."  So,  if  the  Sou 
is  not  honored  in  the  first  act,  neither  is  the  Father  ; 
and  if  the  Son  is  honored  in  the  first  act,  then  it  is 
not  necessary  to  repeat  the  act.  And  so  with  regard 
to  a  third  haptism  into  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  repeti- 
tion of  the  act  of  baptism  for  the  purpose  of  honoring 
those  not  honored  in  the  first  immersion,  is  a  vagary 
conceived  in  the  imaginations  of  men,  and  cherished 
in  their  no  doubt  honest  hearts,  but  nowhere  to  be 
found  in  the  teachings  of  holy  writ.     \_Time  expired. 


[MR  QUINTER'S  FOURTH  ADDRESS.] 

Friendly  Moderators — I  fear  my  friend  did  not 
apprehend  the  points  I  endeavored  to  present  in  my 
last  speech,  so  clearly  as  I  could  have  wished  him  to 
have  done. 

As  regards  the  idea  of  the  existence  of  one  Divin- 
ity, presented  to  us  in  three  different  characters,  or 
offices,  and  under  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit,  I  maintain  that  they  are  some- 
times presented  to  our  consideration,  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, in  their  unity,  as  one — sometimes  in  their  sepa- 
rate characters,  being  distinctly  and  severally  named, 
with  special  reference  to  the  ofiice  each  performs.  I 
claim  that  whatever  union  exists,  whatever  be  the  na- 
ture of  that  mysterious  union,  however  they  all  may 
co-operate  in  the  great  and  glorious  work  of  man's 
salvation,  in  the  commission,  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit,  are  severally  and  separately  set  before 
us,  in  their  distinct  characters. 

I  hope  that  in  referring  to  some  authorities — for 
instance,  to  Alexander  Campbell — no  one  will  suspect 


MR.    QUrXTKR's    FOFRTII    ADDRESS.  67 

me  of  niiv  improper  motives;  I  do  it  becnnsc  these 
men  present  certain  tlioiiglits  wliich  appear  to  me  to 
be  pertinent  in  this  connection,  in  a  better  form  tlian 
I  could  present  tlieni  myself,  with  an  authority  that 
will  not  be  questioned  by  my  friend,  and  in  a  manner 
that  will  commend  itself  to  the  judgment  and  good 
sense  of  this  audience.  I  read  a  passage  from  Mr. 
Ciimpbell,  i-epresenting  the  distinction  in  the  tliree 
persons  or  characters  in  the  Godhead;  the  diiferent 
office  performed  by  each  in  the  great  work  of  human 
redemption  ;  showing  that  whatever  unity  may  exist 
between  them,  they  are  as  separate  and  distinct  in 
character  and  office  as  it  is  possible  for  three  different 
things  to  be.  I  do  not  ask  my  friend,  or  my  hear- 
ers, to  accept  this  because  Mr.  Campbell  says  it,  but 
because  the  position  taken  by  him  is  sustained  by  the 
teachings  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  It  is  in  these  dis- 
tinct and  separate  characters,  with  evident  reference 
to  the  distinct  and  separate  office  performed  by  each, 
that  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  pre- 
sented to  us  in  the  commission.  And  I  claim  that  the 
distinction  so  plainly  set  before  us,  ought  not  to  be 
ignored  or  regarded  as  utterly  meaningless. 

My  friend  remarks,  in  reference  to  the  use  of  two 
elements  in  the  communion,  that  the  bread  and  the 
wine  were  designed  to  represent  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  after  death.  I  do  not  consider  that  as  a 
necessary  inference.  Before  death,  as  after,  his  body 
was  composed  of  two  elements,  the  flesh  and  the  blood; 
he  wished  the  two,  for  some  reason,  to  be  considered 
by  his  disciples  separately :  so  he  chose  the  bread  to 
represent  his  flesh,  and  the  wine  his  blood.  All  I 
maintain  is,  there  was  a  distinction,  and  he  took  this 
method  of  indicating  to  his  disciples  that  he  wished 
that  distinction  to  be  observed.  I  claim  that  in  insti- 
tuting the  ordinance  of  baptism,  his  language,  as  re- 
corded in  the  commission,  indicates  his  design  that 


58  DEBATE    ON   TRINE    IMMERSION. 

the  distinction  between  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  should  be  observed;  and  this  we  do  by 
trine  immersion.  I  do  not  know  how  it  is  recognized 
in  performing  the  ordinance  by  single  immersion. 

My  friend  illustrated  his  idea  of  baptism  by  a  child 
being  born  into  the  State  of  Iowa,  and  by  that  one 
birth  being  made  a  citizen,  not  only  of  Iowa,  but  of 
the  United  States,  I  can  not  see  that  the  cases  are 
analogous.  We  have  spoken  of  the  different  offices 
performed  by  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Now,  the  act  that  inducts  the  President  of  the 
United  States  into  his  office  at  Washington,  does  not 
induct  the  Governor  of  Iowa  into  his  office  at  the  cap- 
ital of  the  State  of  Iowa,  since  the  offices  of  Presi- 
dent and  Governor  are  separate  offices.  So  as  regards 
these  distinct  offices,  and  the  characters  filling  these 
distinct  offices,  in  the  great  work  of  hujnan  redemp- 
tion ;  these  are  separate  offices.  And  in  the  commis- 
sion, this  distinction  is  specially  set  forth  and  insisted 
upon. 

My  friend  presses  the  point,  that  if  the  believer  is 
baptized  into  Christ,  he  is  necessarily  baptized  into 
the  Father.  But  if  the  one  act,  being  baptized  into 
Christ,  is  sufficient,  why  name  the  other  names  ?  Why 
mention  at  all  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit?  So  I  am  driven  to  accept  the  idea  of 
a  plurality  and  distinction  in  the  characters,  and  one 
immersion  into  each,  the  more  fully  to  represent  that 
distinction. 

My  friend  thought  I  had  committed  myself  in  say- 
ing that  the  names  alone  do  not  always  and  every- 
where prove  a  distinction  ;  that  these  names  are  some- 
times used  somewhat  indiscriminately.  That  is  true; 
but  when  I  read  in  the  commission,  "  baptizing  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,"  I  see  very  plainly  that  here  the  names 
are  not  used  indiscriminately,  but  in  such  a  manner  as 


MR.    QUINTEK'S    FOUIITII    ADDRESS.  59 

to  pLiinlj  point  out  the  distinction  between  them,  and 
to  <lirect  special  attention  to  the  distinct  office  of  each. 
While  I  say  on  the  one  hand,  tliat  in  the  Bible  the 
language  does  not  always  prove  a  distinction.  I  say  on 
the  other  hand,  th;it,  in  the  coraniission,  the  hinguage 
does  prove  a  distinction.  This  distinction  we  believe 
the  Saviour  intended  to  be  recognized  in  some  way  in 
the  ordinance  he  then  instituted  ;  and  we  so  recognize 
it  by  immersing  into  the  name  of  each. 

I  think  my  friend  misapprehends  me  again,  in  refer- 
ence to  my  remarks  on  the  trinity.  I  said  that  trine 
immersion  had  nothing  to  do  with  any  peculiar  doc- 
trines regarding  the  trinity.  A  man  may  believe  in 
three  Persons  in  the  Godhead,  perfectly  equal  in  all 
respects  ;  or  in  one  God,  the  two  others  constituting 
the  trinity  being  less  than  God;  may  call  them  three 
Gods,  three  Persons,  or  three  characters;  and  trine 
immersion  will  not  interfere  with  their  belief.  We  sim- 
ply believe  in  a  plurality  in  Divinity,  and  recognize 
it  in  our  baptism.  But  trinitarianism,  unitarianism, 
sabellianism,  and  the  other  isms  having  their  origins 
in  various  speculations  concerning  the  nature  of  the 
trinity,  trine  immersion  has  nothing  to  do  Avith,  and 
I  consider  them  irrelevant  in  this  discussion,  and  not 
necessarily  involved  in  the  question  at  issue  between 
single  and  trine  immersionists. 

1  feel,  then,  that  nothing  that  has  yet  been  said  by 
my  friend  has  dispossessed  me  of  the  ground  I  occupy 
on  this  question — that  there  is  a  distinction  between 
the  characters  and  offices  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  this  distinction  should  be 
recognized  in  baptism  by  immersing  into  each. 

A  word  as  to  my  friend's  criticism  upon  the  word 
"each."  Of  course  I  did  not  claim  that  word  was  in 
the  commission ;  I  referred  to  it  as  the  common  un- 
derstanding of  men  when  reading  the  commission 
with  an  unprejudiced  mind — that  the  believer  should 


60  DEBATE    ON    TRINE   IMMERSION. 

be  baptized  into  each ;  that  each  should  receive  equal 
honor  in  the  ordinance. 

One  or  two  points  introduced  by  mj  friend  can  be 
more  appropriately  noticed  under  iny  next  argument, 
to  which  I  shall  now  proceed. 

IV.  My  fourth  argument  wil  Ibe  draivn  from  the 

structure  of  the  language  ivhich  constitutes  the  formula 
for  baptizing. 

My  friend  knows,  I  suppose,  and  it  is  known  to 
such  of  you  as  are  somewhat  acquainted  with  our 
mode  of  defending  trine  immersion  from  the  commis- 
sion, that  we  believe  the  language  of  the  commission 
to  be  of  the  kind  that  grammarians  call  elliptical; 
that  is,  in  order  to  make  the  text  full,  according  to  the 
correct  grammatical  construction,  certain  words  must 
be  supplied.  We  believe  that  when  the  ellipses  are 
properly  supplied,  the  text  will  read  as  follows  :  "  Bap- 
tizing them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  [bap- 
tizing them  in  the  name]  of  the  Son,  and  [baptizing 
them  in  the  name]  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

It  is  plain  that  in  order  to  analyze,  or  even  under- 
stand the  sentence,  the  phrase  ''in  the  name"  must  be 
added  before  the  words  "  of  the  Son,"  and  ''  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,"  at  least  in  the  mind  of  the  reader. 
There  are  two  methods  of  coming  to  this  conclusion. 
One  is  by  parsing  or  analyzing  the  sentence  accord- 
ing to  the  rules  of  gi-ammar.  The  other  is  by  accept- 
ing the  authority  of  reputable  writers  upon  this  point. 
Both  will  lead  to  the  same  conclusion.  Those  of  you 
•who  are  acquainted  with  the  rules  of  grammatical 
analysis,  will  see  that  the  sentence  is  not  grammat- 
ically complete  in  construction  without  supplying  the 
words  "in  the  name."  You  know,  probably,  that  the 
rules  of  grammar  arc  founded  upon  the  manner  in 
which  eminent  writers  and  speakers  use  words.  Such 
rules  as,  "a  verb  must  agree  with  its  subject  in  num- 


MR.    QUINTKU'S    FOURTH    ADDRESS.  01 

ber  aiul  person  ;  "  and,  "  prepositions  govern  the  ob- 
jective case:"  that  is,  reputable  writers  do  not  say 
''to  who,"  or  "men  is,"  but,  "to  Avlioni,"  and  "men 
are;"  and  hence  the  rules  I  have  referred  to,  ■which 
require  the  latter  form  of  those  expressions,  ratlier 
than  the  former.  So  much  by  way  of  introduction 
to  tlie  argument  on  the  elliptical  character  of  the  lan- 
guage of  the  commission. 

As  grammar  itself  is  based  upon  the  usages  and 
authority  of  men,  rather  than  spend  time  on  dry 
grammatical  analysis,  I  will  appeal  at  once  to  the 
statements  of  those  who  have  made  an  examination 
of  the  matter.  On  this  point,  I  will  refer  you  again 
to  Alexander  Campbell,  as  quoted  by  a  writer — H.  J. 
R. — in  the  Amerioan  Chrisiian  Review,  in  an  article 
on  the  preposition  m,  etc.  The  writer,  in  making 
his  remarks,  said  he  introduced  Mr.  Campbell  because 
he  was  known  to  have  given  that  subject  great  atten- 
tion.    Mr.  Campbell  says  : 

"  Hence,  in  Christian  baptism  as  enacted  by  him- 
self, he  [Christ]  commands  all  converts  to  be  im- 
mersed, not  IX,  but  INTO  [eis]  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  is 
purely  a  Christian  institution,  not  of  Moses  or  the 
prophets  ;  hence  the  formula  is  a  perfectly  original 
and  unprecedented  institution.  There  had  been  wash- 
ings, cleansings,  and  purifyings,  among  the  Jews, 
Samaritans,  and  Gentiles,  by  various  authorities  and 
enactments:  but  not  one  like  this — 'INTO  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  INTO  the  name  of  the  Son,  and  liNTO 
the  name  of  the  Hol^^  Spirit.'  Therefore,  '  IN  the 
name,'  and  'INTO  the  name,'  indicate  two  distinct  and 
incontrovertible  acts,  which  no  grammar  nor  diction- 
ary in  the  civilized  world  can  equivalence  or  synony- 
mize."     [Vol.  X,  No.  39.] 

Another  writer,  P.  Hasty,  in  remarking  upon  the 
language  of  the  commisson,  uses  these  words  : 


62  DEBATE    ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

"'Baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  into  the  name  of  the  Son,  and  into  the  name  of 
the  Holy  Spirit;'  if  this  is  not  the  true  import  of  the 
commission,  I  do  not  know  that  my  obtusity  will  per- 
mit me  to  know  what  it  is.'  "  [American  Christian  He- 
vietv,  Vol.  VII,  No.  34.] 

James  Purves  has  the  following: 

^'Again :  'Baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit;'  it 
is  the  same,  or  of  the  same  import,  as  to  sa}'',  '  Bap- 
tizing them  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  into  the 
name  of  the  Son,  and  into  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.'  If  this  is  not  the  sense,  to  what  does  the 
'  name  '  refer  ?  or  what  is  meant  by  it  ?  If  it  does  not 
refer  to  or  mean  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  the 
name  of  the  Son,  and  the  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it 
w^ould  seem  that  the  text  should  in  part  read  the  very 
reverse  of  what  it  does ;  that  is,  it  should  have  read, 
*  Baptizing  into  the  name,  not  of  the  Father,  nor  of  the 
Son,  nor  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  into  the  name  that 
denotes  the  unity  of  their  essence.'  I  suppose  any 
one  may  see  the  absurdity  of  this,  and  what  difficul- 
ties it  would  present  to  a  serious  inquirer;  while  the 
text  as  it  stands  is  suited  to  convey  instruction  to  the 
most  ordinary  capacity."     [Purves'  Attempt,  p.  44.] 

Now,  I  have  any  amount  of  testimony  on  this 
point,  to  show  that  it  is  the  idea  of  the  most  learned 
and  eminent  men,  that  the  words  "  in  the  name"  should 
be  understood  before  "  Son"  and  "  Holy  Spirit."  But 
I  presume  my  friend  will  admit  this,  and  I  shall  not 
enlarge  upon  it  further  till  there  seems  to  be  a  further 
necessity  for  doing  so.  iVnd,  let  it  be  noticed,  these 
remarks  were  not  made  by  men  who  were  writing 
upou  the  practice  of  trine  immersion;  they  had  no 
thought  in  reference  to  trine  immersion  in  their  minds 
at  all;  these  remarks  were  made  incidentally,  in 
writing  upon  other  subjects  ;  but  looking  at  the  com- 


MR.    QUINTEK's    FOUllTIl    ADDRKSS.  C)?t 

mission,  the  idea  seemed  to  strike  them,  naturnlly, 
that  the  words  "  the  name  of,"  shonhi  be  undei'stood  as 
coming  in  before  "Son,"  and  "Holy  S[)irit,"  ns  it  is 
before  "  Father."  If  that  is  not  the  sense  of  the  pas- 
sage, there  is  no  sense  in  it  at  all.  I  -would  like  to 
have  my  friend,  or  any  one  else,  tell  me  what  is  the 
meaning  of  it,  if  this  is  not? 

In  concluding  this  class  of  testimony,  I  will  intro- 
duce one  to  which  I  will  call  your  attention,  on  ac- 
count of  a  peculiar  mode  of  expression  contained 
therein.  I  hold  in  my  hand  the  work  of  Meyei\  a 
German  commentator,  acknowledged  to  be  one  of  the 
most  profound  and  critical  of  New  Testament  com- 
mentators. He  gives  the  following  clear  and  decided 
testimony  to  the  elliptical  character  of  the  baptismal 
formula  : 

"If  Jesus  had  said,  'the  names,^  he  would  have  ex- 
pressed himself  in  a  manner  easily  misunderstood, 
though  there  are  meant  three  personally  different 
names,  inasmuch  as  ^  to  ^onomafa'  [the  names]  might 
have  been  taken  for  the  several  names  of  each  individ- 
ual subject.  The  singular  signifies  the  definite  name, 
expressed  in  the  text,  of  each  of  the  Three,  so  that '  eis 
to  'onoma'  hef ore  ^  tou  uiou^  and  he^or e  *"  tou  hagio2i 
pneuaatos  '  is  to  be  added  again  mentally,  as  a  matter 
of  course.^'    \_See  his  Commentary  on  Matt.,  xxviii  :  19.] 

That  was  the  idea  of  this  learned  commentator — that 
the  words,  "in  the  name,"  should  be  added  before 
"  the  Son,"  and  before  the  "  Holy  Ghost,"  mentally, 
"  as  a  matter  of  course.''  This  supplying  the  words 
needed,  mentally,  is  exactly  what  grammarians  mean 
by  an  "  ellipsis." 

In  the  sentence  under  consideration,  the  conjunc- 
tion "  and  "  occurs  twice.  What  office  do  conjunc- 
tions perform  ?  Grammarians  tell  us  they  connect 
words  and  phrases.  What  do  they  connect  here  ?  It 
is  evident  that  "  and  "  can  not  connect  the  phrase  "  in 


64  DEBATE    ON    TRTNE    IMMERSION. 

the  name  of  the  Father"  to  "of  tlie  Sou,"  because 
the  latter  commences  with  a  connecting  word,  the 
preposition  "of;"  and  the  use  of  two  connecting 
words  together,  without  any  ellipsis,  would  not  be 
allowable  in  any  other  language  than  this;  and  not  in 
this,  in  any  subject  disconnected  with  theological 
views,  or  something  else  that  men  were  particularly 
interested  in  sustaining.     \^Time  expired. 


[MR.  McCONXELL'S  FOURTH  ADDRESS.] 

Gentlemen  Moderators  and  Friends — My  op- 
ponent commenced  his  last  speech  by  reaffirming  his 
former  statement,  that,  although  the  use  of  the  names, 
"  Father,"  "  Son,"  and  "  Holy  Spirit,"  do  not  oieces- 
sarih/  imply  or  demand  a  distinct  recognition  of  these 
persons,  characters,  or  offices,  wherever  they  are  men- 
tioned in  the  Scriptures,  yet  in  the  commission  they 
do  clearly  express  such  distinction  and  demand  such 
recognition.  Now,  I  ask,  upon  what  does  my  friend 
base  this  assumption  ?  If  the  words  themselves  do 
not  necessarily  imply  such  distinction,  he  must  show 
us  some  other  words  in  connection  therewith,  or  some 
particular  circumstances  bearing  upon  this  particular 
case,  or  bring  some  other  satisfactory  evidence,  to 
convince  us  that  the  words  which  are  used  here  neces- 
sarily mean  something  more  or  something  ditferent  here 
from  what  they  do  when  used  elsewhere.  I  will  let  that 
matter  rest  till  he  brings  some  evidence,  of  some  kind, 
beyond  his  bare  assertion,  to  sustain  his  position. 

My  friend  thinks  I  did  not  apprehend  him  in  his 
argument  based  upon  the  distinction  which  he  insists 
is  to  be  found  in  the  language  of  the  commission  be- 
tween the  three  persons  or  characters  in  the  God- 
head. He  now  says  that  the  distinction  between  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  a  distinction 


MR.  m'cONNKLI/s    FOUIITII    ADDRESS.  65 

in  office.  And  he  endeavors  to  prove  the  necessity 
of  three  immersions,  by  showing  tliat  the  same  act 
which  inducts  the  President  of  the  United  States  into 
office  at  Washington  does  not  induct  the  Governor  of 
the  State  of  Iowa  into  office  at  the  capital  of  Iowa. 
This  reasoning  would  be  sound  if  it  were  the  Father, 
and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  were  to  be  bap- 
tized. But  as  the  believer  is  not  baptized  into  office 
and  authority,  but  into  subjection  to  the  Father,  and 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  I  do  not  see  that  the 
cases  are  analogous. 

My  friend  asks,  if  baptizing  a  believer  into  Christ, 
the  Son,  introduces  the  man  into  the  whole  Divinity, 
why  mention  the  other  two  names  ?  In  answer  to 
this,  I  will  simply  say,  first,  that  Christ  mentioned  all 
the  three  names  in  the  formula  of  the  commission, 
and  we  iin.'ntion  them  in  baptism  because  we  find  them 
in  the  formula;  second,  that  the  apostles,  I  appre- 
hend, understood  the  commission  as  well  as  anybody 
understands  it  now,  or  has  understood  it  since  their 
day ;  and  when  they  went  out  to  preadi  and  baptize 
under  that  commission,  with  the  words  of  their  Divine 
blaster  yet  fresh  in  their  memory,  and  their  minds 
illuminated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  said,  "  Repent, 
and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ;'^  and  in  every  instance  where  the 
apostles  commanded  baptism,  it  was  to  be  done  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  or  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  This 
was,  probably,  because  it  was  understood  that  he  em- 
bodied the  whole  Divinity  ;  "  in  him  dwell  the  fullness 
of  the  Godhead  bodily  ;"  hence,  "  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit," 
could  mean  no  more  than  was  indicated  in  the  phrase, 
"  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  If  this 
reason  be  not  sufficient  or  satisfactory,  what  other 
reasons  there  were,  if  not  evident  to  us,  was  apparent 
to  the  Saviour  and  his  apostles. 


66  DEBATE    ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

We  will  now  pass  on  to  the  consideration  of  my 
friend's  fourth  argument  in  favor  of  trine  immersion, 
which  is  based  on  the  structure  of  the  language  con- 
stituting the  formula.  We  believe,  with  him,  that  the 
language  of  the  commission  is  what  grammarians 
term  "  elliptical."  His  manner  of  supplying  the 
ellipsis,  however,  does  not  strike  me  as  being  correct. 
He  would  have  the  commission  read,  when  suppressed 
portions  of  the  sentence  are  supplied,  "Baptizing  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  [baptizing  in  the  name] 
of  the  Son,  and  [baptizing  in  the  name]  of  the  Holy 
Spirit."  I  do  not  accept  that  method  of  supplying 
the  ellipses.  I  join  issue  with  him  there.  We  now 
come  to  the  closest  work  we  will  have  in  this  discus- 
sion. The  whole  controversy  turns  upon  the  teaching 
of  the  commission  ;  if  the  commission  does  not  teach 
trine  immersion,  with  all  the  clearness  imaginable, 
then  trine  immersion  can  not  be  sustained.  If  my 
friend  fails  to  show  that  his  method  of  supplying  the 
ellipses  is  correct,  and  if,  when  that  is  done,  we  do 
not  find  in  it  the  most  positive  and  unequivocal  com- 
mand for  three  immersions,  he  must  give  up  his  posi- 
tion entirely  ;  for  nowhere  else,  so  far  as  I  understand 
the  matter,  does  he  claim  to  find  the  least  warrant  for 
three  immersions. 

My  friend's  first  step  toward  supplying  the  ellipses 
is  to  insist  that  the  words  "  in  the  name  "  should  be 
supplied  before  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  He 
gave  us  a  dissertation  upon  grammar,  after  which  he 
introduced  Alexander  Campbell,  and  a  writer  in  the 
Christian  Review,  and  a  German  commentator  of  some 
note,  and  perhaps  some  other,  to  sustain  this  position. 
I  will  admit  all  they  said  having  a  bearing  upon  this 
point,  not  because  Alexander  Campbell  or  any  one 
else  said  so,  but  because  the  grammatical  structure 
of  the  sentence  requires  that  very  thing.  The  copu- 
lative  conjunction   "and"  means   "add  to;"  and  it 


MR.  m'cONNELL's   fourth    ADDRESS.  67 

does  "add  to"  the  n;ime  of  the  Fatlier,  tlie  name  of 
the  Son,  and  the  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  my 
friend  wishes  to  add  something  else.  And  the  whole 
issue  between  us  is  as  to  how  large  a  load  the  little 
-conjunction  "  and  "  is  to  be  allowed  to  draw  after  it. 
My  friend  says  that  the  conjunction  "and"  reaches 
still  farther  back  into  the  preceding  phrase,  and  adds 
to  the  second  and  third  members  of  the  sentence  the 
word  "  baptizing  "  also ;  "baptizing  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  [baptizing  in  the  name]  of  the  Son, 
and  [baptizing  in  the  name]  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  We 
both  agree  that  in  supplying  the  ellipses,  the  words 
"the  name  "  are  to  be  carried  forward  ;  but  he  goes 
farther,  and  insists  on  the  word  "  baptizing "  also 
being  carried  forward  every  time.  I  claim  that  this 
is  incorrect,  unreasonable,  ungrammatical  and  unscrip- 
tural. 

Let  us  see  if  an  examination  of  other  passages  of 
Scripture  of  similar  construction  will  bear  him  out  in 
his  argument.  First,  let  us  turn  to  Luke,  chap,  ix  : 
verse  26:  "For  whosoever  shall  be  ashamed  of  me 
and  of  my  words,  of  him  shall  the  Son  of  Man  be 
ashamed,  when  he  shall  come  in  his  own  glory,  and  in 
his  Father's,  and  of  the  holy  angels."  Here  is  an- 
other elliptical  sentence,  which  my  friend  and  I  would 
both  agree  to  complete  by  adding  the  word  "  glory  " 
to  the  last  two  phrases,  making  the  conclusion  of  the 
verse  read,  "  when  he  shall  come  in  his  own  glory, 
and  in  his  Father's  [glory],  and  [in  the  glory]  of  the 
holy  angels."  But  my  friend's  method  of  supplying 
the  ellipses  would  give  this  thought:  "  When  he  shall 
come  in  his  own  glory,  and  shall  come  again  in  his 
Father's  glory,  and  shall  come  a  third  time  in  the 
glory  of  his  holy  angels."  If  there  are  three  diflfer- 
ent  immersions  commanded  in  the  commission,  there 
are  three  difterent  comings  or  advents  promised  in  the 
verse  before  us.     But  no  one  will  accept  suck  an  in- 


68  DEBATE   ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

terpretation  of  this  text,  and  I  can  not  accept  his  in- 
terpretation of  the  commission. 

Again,  let  us  turn  to  Matthew,  chap,  xxiii  :  verse 
1 :  *'  Tiien  spake  Jesus  to  the  multitude,  and  to  his 
disciples."  Did  Jesus  on  this  occasion  deliver  two 
different  discourses,  one  to  the  multitude  and  the  other 
to  his  disciples?  or  did  he  discourse  first  to  the  multi- 
tude, and  afterward  repeat  the  same  discourse  to  his 
disciples  ?  Is  it  not  more  sensible  to  believe  that  he 
made  but  one  speech,  which  was  heard  by  both  at 
once?  Just  use  a  little  of  your  own  common  sense 
here;  it  is  worth  more  than  the  authority  of  Alexan- 
der Campbell,  or  any  other  commentator,  however 
eminent. 

Turn  next  to  Golossians,  ii :  2  :  ''  *  *  to  the 
acknowledgment  of  the  mystery  of  God,  and  of  the 
Father,  and  of  Christ."  1  understand  by  this  that 
there  is  one  mystery — the  mystery  of  God,  the  Father, 
and  of  Christ.  But  my  friend's  method  of  interpre- 
tation would  give  us  three  mysteries ;  first,  the  mys- 
tery of  God ;  second,  the  mystery  of  the  Father ; 
and  yet  a  third  mystery,  that  of  Christ.  Nay,  more, 
he  would  give  us  three  acknowledgments  also  ;  and 
would  supply  the  ellipses  so  as  to  make  this  clause  of 
the  verse  read,  "  to  the  acknowledgment  of  the  mys- 
tery of  God,  and  [to  the  acknowledgment  of  the 
mystery]  of  the  Father,  and  [to  the  acknowledgment 
of  the  mystery]  of  Christ.''  But  who  understands 
language  in  that  manner  ?  No  one — outside  of  our 
trine  immersionist  friends,  and  they  nowhere  else  ex- 
cept in  the  commission. 

Again :  *'  The  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  and  unto 
Aaron"  (Numbers,  iv  :  1,  and  many  other  places). 
Do  you  understand  by  that  language  that  the  Lord 
first  spoke  to  Moses,  and  when  he  had  finished  ad- 
dressing him,  spoke  to  Aaron,  saying  the  same  thing  ? 
Nobody  believes  it,  or  so  interprets  it.     But  that  is 


MR.  m'cONNKLL'S    fourth    ADDRESS.  69 

the  manner  in  wliicli  our  trine  immersionist  friends 
interpret  the  commission. 

Yet,  again  :  Turn  to  Matthew,  viii :  11  (a  verse 
already  once  used  to  illustrate  another  point,  but 
■which  will  serve  a  second  purpose  here):  "I  say 
unto  you,  that  many  shall  come  from  the  east  and  west, 
and  shall  sit  down  with  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and 
Jacob,  in  the  Kingdom  of  heaven."  According  to  my 
friend's  manner  of  supplying  ellipses  and  drawing 
conclusions,  many  shall  come  from  the  east,  and  shall 
sit  down  with  Abraham  ;  then,  returning  to  the  point 
of  starting,  shall  come  again,  and  sit  down  with  Isaac; 
again  returning  to  their  original  place,  they  shall 
come  yet  a  third  time,  and  sit  down  Avith  Jacob. 
After  which  they  will  go  to  the  west,  and  come  and 
sit  down,  first  with  Abraham,  a  second  time  with 
Isaac,  and  a  third  time  with  Jacob — making  three 
times  more  they  shall  come  from  the  west  and  sit 
down  !  No  one — except  the  defenders  of  trine  im- 
mersion— understands  language  so,  and  they  nowhere 
but  in  the  commission. 

Still  again  :  I  Thessalonians,  v :  23:  "  *  *  I 
pray  God  your  whole  spirit,  and  soul,  and  body,  be 
preserved  blameless  unto  the  coming  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  Does  the  apostle  mean  that  Grod  shall 
preserve  the  spirit  blameless  till  the  coming  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  when  that  is  accomplished,  pre- 
serve the  soul  likewise,  and,  lastly,  preserve  the  body 
blameless  ? — three  distinct  actions  ?  But  my  friend's 
rule  of  interpretation  makes  the  apostle  say  that. 

I  could  continue  for  hours  to  quote  from  the  Bible, 
showing  to  the  most  ordinary  comprehension  that  the 
carrying  forward  of  the  word  "  baptizing  "  in  the  com- 
mission is  contrary  to  the  structure  of  the  language, 
and  the  manner  of  speaking  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. My  friend  has  not  yet  concluded  his  argument, 
nor  produced  all  his  authorities;  but  the  authorities 


70  DEBATE    ON    TRINE    IMMERSION. 

already  quoted  by  him,  I  venture  to  say,  will  not  bear 
him  out  in  the  assertion  he  has  made  as  to  the  proper 
method  of  supplying  the  ellipses  in  the  language  of 
the  commission.  I  have  never  found  any  work  upon 
language  that  authorized  such  a  construction  ;  and  I 
am  satisfied  that  the  Bible  nowhere  justifies  such  an 
interpretation.  I  am  willing  to  receive  information 
and  light  from  any  source,  but  I  prefer,  so  far  as  pos- 
sible, to  explain  the  Scriptures  by  themselves ;  to  let 
God  be  his  own  interpreter,  rather  than  to  rely  upon 
the  speculations  of  men.  The  celebrated  Bishop  Home 
says,  when  any  passage  is  brought  forward,  the  precise 
meaning  of  which  is  not  clear,  the  safest  and  best  way 
is  to  go  to  other  passages  of  similar  construction,  as- 
certain their  import,  and  then  come  back  to  the  diffi- 
cult passage  with  the  light  thus  received.  This  is  the 
course  I  am  pursuing  here,  in  opposing  my  friend  in 
what  I  conceive  to  be  his  arbitrary  and  unwarranted 
interpretation  of  the  language  of  the  commission. 

We  are  about  to  close  for  to-night,  to  reassemble 
to-morrow  morning,  if  God  shall,  in  his  providence, 
permit  us  to  come  together  again.  In  separating  to 
your  several  homes,  I  would  have  you  remember  that 
we  shall  all  have  to  render  an  account  for  the  im- 
provement of  this  occasion ;  we  for  what  we  say,  and 
our  manner  of  saying  it ;  you  for  the  manner  in  which 
you  hear,  and  in  which  you  act  upon  what  you  hear. 
\_Time  expired. 


[MR  QUIXTER'S  FIFTH  ADDRESS.] 

Friendly  jNIoderators — I  am  happy,  this  morning, 
to  be  permitted,  in  the  kind  providence  of  God,  to  re- 
sume the  discussion  in  which  we  are  engaged.  I 
shall  proceed  first  to  notice  the  closing  speech  of  my 
friend,  yesterday  afternoon.  The  language  of  the 
commission  is  what  we  have  before  us.     My  friend 


MR.    QUIXTER's    fifth    ADDRESS.  71 

accepted  tlic  commission  in  the  followincr  form  :  "Bap- 
tizing them  in  the  name  of  the  Fatlier,  and  [in  the 
name]  of  the  Son,  and  [in  tlic  name]  of  tlie  Holy 
Spirit."  lie  tlien  proceeded  to  quote  passa^jes  of 
Scripture  apparently  similar  in  construction  to  the 
language  of  the  commission,  but  which  did  not  require 
repeated  action  ;  and  from  that  he  proceeded  to  argue 
that  tlie  commission,  in  the  form  in  which  he  accepted 
it,  does  not  require  repeated  action. 

Now,  if  that  plan  of  proceeding  is  proper  for  him, 
it  is  proper  for  me  ;  if  passages  of  similar  construction 
to  the  commission,  which  require  but  one  action,  are 
aro-uments  in  favor  of  but  one  action  in  the  corarais- 
sion,  parallel  passages  requiring  repeated  action  are  ar- 
guments in  favor  of  repeated  action  in  the  commission. 

First,  let  us  turn  to  Matthew,  chapter  xvii :  verse 
15:  "Lord,  have  mercy  on  my  son;  for  he  is  a 
lunatic,  and  sore  vexed :  for  oft-times  he  falleth  into 
the  fire,  and  oft  into  the  water."  Now,  though  the 
verb  "falleth"  is  not  repeated  here,  it  is  evident  that 
there  must  have  been  a  repetition  of  the  action  ;  for 
one  act  of  ialling  would  not  have  put  that  lunatic  into 
the  fire  and  into  the  water.  He  must  at  one  time 
have  fallen  into  the  fire,  and  at  another  time  have 
fallen  into  the  water.  The  construction  demands  a 
repetition  of  the  action. 

Mark,  v :  14 :  "  And  they  that  fed  the  swine  fled, 
and  told  it  in  the  city,  and  in  the  country."  Here  it 
is  plain  that  the  telling  it  in  the  city  did  not  tell  it  to 
the  country.  There  must  have  been  a  repetition  of 
the  act  of  telling. 

Murk,  xi :  11 :  "  And  Jesus  entered  into  Jerusalem, 
and  into  the  temple."  Your  common  sense  will  tell 
you  that  his  entering  into  Jerusalem  did  not  neces- 
sarily take  him  into  the  temple.  There  must  have 
been  two  enterings  ;  first,  an  entering  into  Jerusalem, 
and,  after  that,  a  second  entering  into  the  temple. 


72  DEBATE  ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

But  I  might  go  on  to  quote  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, similar  in  construction  to  the  commission,  in 
which  a  repetition  of  the  action  was  necessary,  for 
the  entire  half-hour  I  am  to  occupy.  The  point  is 
this :  if  the  passages  that  he  quotes,  in  which  a  repe- 
tition of  action  is  not  required,  prove  that  the  lan- 
guage of  the  commission  does  not  require  a  repetition 
of  the  act  of  immersing,  these  passages  that  I  quote, 
in  which  a  repetition  of  action  is  required,  prove  that 
the  language  of  the  commission  does  require  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  act  of  immersing.  My  friend,  then,  can 
never  consistently  reject  trine  immersion  ;  because  the 
very  method  of  reasoning  which  he  has  introduced, 
and  upon  which  he  seems  to  rely  so  strongly,  proves 
that  a  repetition  of  the  act  of  baptizing  is  necessarily 
to  be  understood  from  the  lansjuas^e  of  the  commission. 
His  own  mode  of  arguing  places  my  position  at  least 
on  an  equality  with  his. 

We  willingly  acknowledge  that,  in  some  of  the  sen- 
tences read,  a  repetition  of  the  act  is  necessary, 
while  in  others  it  is  not.  I  have  not  argued  that  in 
every  case  where  there  is  an  ellipsis  to  be  supplied 
there  must  necessarily  be  a  repetition  of  the  action  ; 
whether  such  is  the  case  or  not  is  to  be  inferred  from 
other  circumstances.  But.  first,  in  order  to  get  a  little 
clearer  idea  of  the  grammatical  construction  of  the 
language  of  the  commission,  I  want,  for  a  few  mo- 
ments, the  attention  of  the  reflecting,  and  more  es- 
pecially of  those  who  can  follow  me  a  little  in  a 
grammatical  analysis  of  the  language.  The  passage 
under  consideration  is,  "Baptizing  them  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  into  the  name  of  the  Son, 
and  into  the  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  (Such 
is  the  shape  in  which  my  friend  has  already  ac- 
cepted it.)  The  first  part  of  the  sentence,  "  Baptizing 
into  the  name  of  the  Father,''  stands  as  a  single  })rop- 
osition.      Now,  it  is  a  well-established  rule  iu  the 


MR.    QUINTEr's    fifth    ADDRESS.  73 

Enc^lish  larii^uage,  and,  I  think,  in  all  lannjuagos,  that 
•where  a  conjunction  is  emplo3'e(l  to  connect  several 
propositions,  a  portion  of  some  of  which  are  left  un- 
expressed, or,  in  other  words,  are  suppressed  by  the 
use  of  an  ellipsis,  in  supplying  the  ellipses,  the  first 
proposition  is  to  be  the  model  upon  which  the  rest  are 
constructed.  The  elliptical  sentences,  in  being  filled 
out,  are  to  be  modeled  after  the  first  sentence  ;  what- 
ever is  contained  in  the  first  sentence  is  to  be  under- 
stood as  being  contained  in  the  second.  Now,  in  the 
case  before  us,  the  first  sentence  is,  ''  Baptizing  into 
the  name  of  the  Father ;"  then  comes  the  conjunction 
"and,"  whose  meaning  is,  as  already  said,  "  add  to  ;" 
add  to  this,  "  baptizing  into  the  name  of  the  Son." 
Here  we  follow  the  rules  of  grammar,  and  form  the 
second  proposition  after  the  model  of  the  first.  But 
my  friend  would  violate  this  well-established  rule,  and 
after  the  conjunction  *'  and"  would  suppress  a  part  of 
the  second  proposition — not  making  the  second  prop- 
osition after  the  model  of  the  first.  I  would  ask  my 
friend  by  what  authority  he  suppresses  a  part  of  the 
second  proposition,  and  adds  but  a  part  of  it  to  the  pre- 
ceding one?  Taking  the  conjunction  "  and  "  in  the 
sense  of  "  adding  to,"  as  he  insists,  and  filling  out  the 
second  and  third  propositions  after  the  model  of  the 
first,  as  all  grammatical  authorities  direct,  and  we  have 
the  commission,  when  the  ellipses  are  supplied,  read  as 
follows  :  "Baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Son,  and  bap- 
tizing them  into  the  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  If 
there  is  any  other  possible  way  of  completing  the 
sentence  so  as  to  represent  its  correct  grammatical 
construction,  let  my  friend  produce  his  authorities. 

I  have  here  Latham's  "  Hand-book  of  the  English 
Language,"  from  which  I  read  :  "  It  is  highly  import- 
ant to  remember  that  many  double  propositions  may 
be  expressed  so  compendiously  as  to  look  like  one. 


74  DEBATE    ON   TRINE   IxMMERSION. 

When  this  takes  place,  and  any  question  arises  as  to 
the  construction,  they  must  be  exhibited  in  their  full, 
expanded  form — ^.  e.,  the  second  subject,  the  second 
predicate,  and  the  second  copula,  must  be  supplied. 
This  can  always  be  done  from  the  first  propositioyi.'^ 

This  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  what  I  have  already 
said,  and  Avith  the  teachings  of  a  number  of  other 
authors  upon  this  subject;  and  I  know  of  no  one  who 
■would  deny  it.  Each  proposition  must  be  exhibited 
in  its  fully  expanded  form ;  the  ellipsis  must  be  sup- 
plied in  such  a  manner  that  the  second  proposition 
will  contain  whatever  is  contained  in  the  first.  In 
pursuance  of  these  rules,  we  are  compelled  to  give 
the  language  of  the  commission  this  form  :  "  Baptiz- 
ing them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Son,  and  baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Now  the  question  arises  :  Accepting  this  as  the  cor- 
rect reading  of  the  commission,  after  the  ellipses  are 
properly  supplied,  does  this  require  a  repetition  of  the 
act  of  baptizing  ?  I  maintain  that  it  does.  What 
would  be  the  impression  of  an  unprejudiced  mind — as 
clear  of  prejudice  as  the  skies  over  us  this  morning 
are  of  clouds — upon  reading  such  language  ?  Would 
the  natural  inference  be  in  favor  of  one  act  of  bap- 
tizing, or  of  three?  I  have  shown  the  distinction  in 
the  names  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 
I  have  shown  that  the  conjunction  ''and"  does  not 
connect  these  names,  but  does  connect  the  three  prop- 
ositions. We  have  shown  Avhat  the  propositions  are 
that  are  thus  connected,  when  fully  expanded  by  sup- 
plying the  ellipses  in  accordance  with  correct  gram- 
matical analysis,  according  to  the  usage  of  those  who 
rightly  construe  and  teach  our  language  ;  and  into  the 
three  separate  names,  representing  three  distinct  per- 
sons, characters,  or  ofiices,  we  are  to  be  baptized 
separately.     Previous  arguments,  based  upon  other 


MR.  quinter's  rrrTii  address.  75 

grounds,  had  lod  to  this  conclusion  ;  and  now  a  criti- 
cal anal  vsis  of  the  hinguage  of  the  commission  not  only 
justifies  but  requires  three  actions — three  immersions. 

But  even  if  my  friend  should  not  be  willincr  to  ac- 
cept this  version  of  the  commission,  ^'Baptizing  into 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  baptizing  into  tlie  name 
of  the  Son,  and  baptizing  into  the  name  of  tlie  Holy 
Spirit,"  I  will  take  him  upon  his  own  ground — look 
at  the  form  of  the  language  as  my  friend  does  accept 
it,  and  see  what  authority  we  have  that  that  form,  even, 
authoiizcs  and  necessitates  trine  immersion.  He 
would  have  the  commission  read,  when  the  ellipses  are 
supplied, ''  Baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  into  the  name  of  the  Son,  and  into  the  name  of 
the  Holy  Spirit." 

Now,  I  will  read  from  Dr.  Conant's  critical  notes 
upon  the  verse  containing  the  commission.  Dr.  Co- 
nant  stands  at  the  head  of  the  American  Bible  Union. 
Few  men  in  our  country  stand  higher  than  he  in  ac- 
knowledged learning  and  ability.  He  has  made  a 
translation  of  the  gospel  by  Matthew,  and  to  that 
translation  has  added  critical  notes.  In  his  notes 
upon  Matthew,  xxviii :  19,  he  has  the  following  :  "  The 
practice  was  adopted,  at  an  early  period,  of  immersing 
at  the  utterance  of  each  name.  But  this  is  clearly 
contrary  to  the  terms  of  the  command.  To  justify 
such  a  practice,  the  form  should  have  been,  either, '  in 
the  names  of^  or,  *  in  the  name  of  the  Father^  and  in 
the  name  of  the  Son^  and  in  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Spirit:  " 

Mark  the  point :  Dr.  Conant  says  that  is  the  way 
the  commission  ought  to  be  read,  in  order  to  justify 
trine  immersion;  and  Campbell,  Meyers,  and  others, 
including  my  friend  here,  say  that  when  the  ellipses 
arc  properly  filled,  that  is  the  way  the  commission 
does  read.  In  other  words,  my  friend  here  insists 
upon  reading  the  commission  precisely  as  Dr.  Conant 


76  DEBATE    ON    TRINE    IMMERSION. 

says  it  ought  to  read,  in  order  to  justify  trine  immer- 


sion. 


V.  I  proceed  to  my  fifth  argument  in  favor  of  trine 
immersion.  It  is  grounded  on  the  fact  that  Paul  recog- 
nized a  plurality  of  immersions  in  baptism. 

In  an  exhortation  to  the  Hebrews,  wherein  he  re- 
proves them  for  not  advancing  in  the  divine  life,  he 
says  :  "  Therefore,  leaving  the  principles  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ,  let  us  go  on  unto  perfection;  not  lay- 
ing again  the  foundation  of  repentance  from  dead 
works,  and  of  faith  toward  God,  of  the  doctrine  of 
baptisms,  and  of  laying  on  of  hands,  and  of  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal  judgment."  (Hebrews, 
vi:l,  2.) 

The  word  baptismoJi,  translated  "  baptisms  "  in  our 
common  version,  is,  by  Mr.  Anderson,  and  the  Bible 
Union,  and  other  high  authorities,  translated  "immer- 
sions." That  the  baptism  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  here 
alluded  to,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  We  can  not  con- 
sistently make  anything  else  out  of  it.  Some  have 
tried  to  make  something  else  out  of  it,  because  it  in- 
terfered with  their  preconceived  notions  ;  but  their 
views  have  been  almost  as  numerous  as  their  attempts. 
This  is  a  plain  admission  of  a  plurality  of  immersions 
in  Christian  baptism.  I  present  it  as  a  supporting 
argument  for  trine  immersion.  My  friend  said,  yes- 
terday, that  it  was  the  commission  alone  that  we  relied 
upon  to  sustain  trine  immersion,  and  that  if  we  could 
not  find  it  there,  we  could  not  find  it  anywhere.  I 
want  to  show  you  that  this  is  a  misrepresentation  of 
our  grounds  for  the  practice  of  trine  immersion.  That 
this  passage  teaches,  or  at  least  recognizes,  trine  im- 
mersion, is  plain,  clear,  conclusive ;  at  least  I  shall 
hold  it  to  be  so  until  it  is  taken  from  me  by  evidence 
that  must  be  accepted.     Why,  the  Scriptures  are  full 


MR.    m'cONNELI/s    fifth    ADDRESS.  77 

of  trine  imTncrsion.  My  friend  has  refcrrG<l  to  the 
first  recorded  instance  of  baptism  by  the  apostles 
under  the  commission.  Acts,  ii:  38:  Peter  said.  "Re- 
pent, and  be  baptized" — not  "into  the  name,"  but 
"  IN  the  name ;"  not  eis,  but  epi — "  IN  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ ;"  under  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ;  in 
his  name  be  baptized  into  the  Father,  and  into  the 
Son,  and  into  the  Holy  Spirit.  Those  conscience- 
stricken  and  repentant  Jews  were  commanded  to  be 
baptized  under  the  authority  of  their  crucified  and 
risen  Saviour ;  but  when  baptized,  they  doubtless  were 
baptized  according  to  the  formula  of  the  commission. 
So  there  we  have  trine  immersion  in  the  second  chap- 
ter of  Acts,  in  the  eighth  chapter,  in  the  tenth  chap- 
ter, in  the  sixteenth  chapter;  and  whenever  and 
wherever  Christian  baptism  was  administered  under 
the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  obedience  to  the 
commission,  it  was  done  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  into  the  name  of  the  Son,  and  into  the  name  of 
the  Holy  Spirit — which,  I  insist,  could  only  be  done 
by  trine  immersion.     [^Time  expired. 


[MR.  McCONNELL'S   FIFTH   ADDRESS.] 

Moderators  and  Friends — I  am  happy  to  meet 
you  this  morning,  to  continue  this  very  pleasant  dis- 
cussion of  important  issues,  involving  the  practice  of 
the  Christian  world  in  reference  to  one  of  the  most 
important  institutions  ever  established  among  men. 

In  the  interval  since  our  adjournment  last  evening, 
some  remarks  of  my  friend,  in  his  speeches  yesterday, 
have  been  recalled  to  my  mind,  that  have  not  yet 
received  from  me  the  response  that  was  perhaps  due 
them  ;  and  to  some  of  these  things  I  shall  first  refer. 

My  friend  said,  in  his  introduction,  that  "two  im- 
mersionists  are  here,  differing  as  to  the  mode  of  im- 


78  DEBATE    ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 


It  is  not  so  set  forth  in  the  proposition,  nor  has  my 
friend  presented  anything  on  that  point.  As  I  un- 
derstand it,  the  issue  between  us  is  not  an  issue  of 
mode,  but  of  number.  We  agree  as  to  the  action  of 
baptism — it  is  immersion  ;  the  issue  is,  whether  it  takes 
a  single  immersion,  or  three  immersions,  to  make  one 
baptism. 

My  friend  entertained  us  yesterday  forenoon  with 
lengthy  quotations  from  the  writings  of  the  Christian 
Fathers  who  stood  forth  as  advocates  of  trine  immer- 
.sion.  You  will  remember  that  he  found  trine  immer- 
sion first  of  all  in  the  third  century,  and  never  w^ent 
back  earlier  than  that ;  but  traced  it  down  through 
the  fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  centui'ies,  and  so  on  along 
down  to  Bishop  Beveridge  and  Whiston,  of  compara- 
tively recent  date.  I  propose  to  read  a  little  this 
morning  in  reference  to  this  matter  of  baptism  ;  I 
shall  commence  further  down  the  stream  than  my 
friend  commenced,  but  I  shall  travel  in  the  other 
direction,  and  go  further  toward  the  fountain  than  he 
went.  And  I  want  to  make  this  statement  before  I 
read:  I  read,  not  from  prejudiced  champions  of 
trine  or  of  single  immersion,  but  from  reliable  records 
of  the  early  church ;  not  the  inferences  of  partisan 
advocates,  but  the  statements  of  impartial  historians. 

My  purpose,  you  will  understand,  is  this :  My 
friend  has  told  you  that  certain  learned  men  in  the 
church,  at  that  early  day,  advocated  trine  immersion, 
and  that  the  church  itself  practiced  it.  Now,  I  propose 
to  show  you  that  these  great  men  sanctioned,  and  the 
church  practiced,  at  that  same  age,  the  most  egre- 
gious errors  in  connection  with  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism ;  consecpieiitl}'',  the  sanction  of  those  great  names, 
or  of  the  cluii-ch  itself,  in  behalf  of  any  given  doctrine 
oj-  practice,  is  no  proof  that  it  is  founded  upon  the 
Word  of  God. 


MR.    m'cONXELI/s    fifth   ADDRESS.  79 

We  will  commence  witli  tlie  fourth  century.  Turn- 
in<T  to  Moshcim's  Ecclesiastical  History,  we  read  as 
follows  : 

''Baptismal  fonts  were  erected  in  the  porch  of  each 
church,  for  the  more  commodious  administration  of 
that  initiating  ordinance.  Baptism  was  administered 
daring  the  vigils  of  Easter  and  Whitsuntide,  with 
lighted  tapers,  by  the  bishop,  and  the  presbyters  were 
commissioned  by  hira  for  that  purpose.  In  cases, 
however,  of  urgent  necessity,  and  in  such  only,  a  dis- 
pensation was  granted  for  performing  this  sacred  rite 
at  other  times  than  those  now  mentioned.  In  some 
places,  salt  was  employed,  as  a  symbol  of  purit}''  and 
wisdom,  and  was  thrown,  with  this  view,  into  the  mouth 
of  the  person  baptized  ;  and  a  double  unction  was 
everywhere  used  in  the  celebration  of  this  onlinance — 
one  preceding  its  administration,  and  the  other  follow- 
ing it.  The  persons  who  were  admitted  into  the 
church  by  baptism  were  obliged,  after  the  celebration 
of  that  holy  ordinance,  to  go  clothed  in  white  gar- 
ments during  the  space  of  seven  days.  Many  other 
rites  and  ceremonies  might  be  mentioned  here,  but 
as  they  never  acquired  stability  by  their  duration, 
nor  received  the  sanction  of  universal  approbation  and 
assent,  we  shall  pass  them  over  in  silence." 

So  you  see  that  in  the  fourth  century  many  corrup- 
tions had  crept  into  the  church ;  many  things  had 
been  thrown  about  this  ordinance  of  baptism  that  my 
friend  would  not  practice  to-day.  Now  let  us  see 
what  is  said  in  connection  with  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism in  the  third  century  : 

"  Baptism  was  considered  by  all  as  of  the  highest 
importance,  and  as  essential  to  salvation  ;  for  which 
reason  it  was  even  thought  proper  to  administer  it  to 
infants.  There  were,  twice  a  year,  stated  times  when 
baptism  was  administered  to  such  as,  by  a  long  course 
of  trial  and  preparation,  offered  themselves  as  caudi- 


80  DEBATE   ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

dates  for  the  profession  of  Christianity.  The  cere- 
mony was  performed  only  in  the  presence  of  such  as 
were  already  initiated  into  the  Christian  mysteries. 
The  remission  of  sin  was  thought  to  be  its  immediate 
and  happy  fruit;  while  the  bishop,  by  the  laying  on 
of  hands,  was  supposed  to  confer  those  sanctifying 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  are  necessary  to  a  life 
of  happiness  and  virtue.  We  have  already  mentioned 
the  principal  rites  which  were  used  in  the  administra- 
tion of  baptism  ;  and  we  have  only  to  add  that  no  per- 
sons were  admitted  to  this  solemn  ordinance,  until,  by 
the  menacinor  and  formidable  shouts  and  declamations 

o 

of  the  exorcists,  they  had  been  delivered  from  the  do- 
minion of  the  Prince  of  Darkness,  and  consecrated  to 
the  service  of  God." 

Here,  in  the  third  century,  we  find  a  great  corrup- 
tion of  the  plainness  and  simplicity  of  the  gospel.  In 
the  very  century  in"  which  my  friend  first  finds  trine 
immersion,  we  find  exorcists  employed,  and  infant 
baptism  already  in  existence.  Mosheim  elsewhere  tells 
us  that  infant  communion  was  practiced  in  the  same 
century.  In  fact,  a  thousand  and  one  vulgar  and  un- 
scriptural  ceremonies  prevailed  in  the  religious  world 
durinoj  the  ao;e  when  we  first  hear  of  trine  immersion  ; 
and,  with  due  respect  to  my  friend  and  the  ordinance 
he  holds  so  dear,  I  can  not  but  regard  trine  immer- 
sion as  one  of  those  speculations  of  men. 

But  let  us  turn  now  to  the  second  century,  and  see 
what  we  can  find  concerning  baptism.     Mosheim  says: 

"The  sacrament  of  baptism  was  administered  twice 
every  year,  at  the  festivals  of  Easter  and  Pentecost, 
or  Whitsuntide,  either  by  the  bishop,  or,  in  conse- 
quence of  his  authorization  and  appointment,  by  the 
presbyters.  The  persons  that  were  to  be  baptized, 
after  they  had  repeated  the  creed,  confessed  and  re- 
nounced their  sins,  and  particularly  the  devil  and  his 
pompous  allurements,  were  immersed  under  water,  and 


MR.  m'connell's  fifth  address.  81 

received  into  Christ's  kingdom  by  a  solemn  invocation 
of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  nccordino;  to  the  ex- 
press command  of  our  Blessed  Lord  ;  were  anointed 
by  prayers  and  the  imposition  of  hands;  were  solemnly 
recommended  to  the  mercy  of  God,  nnd  dedicated  to 
his  service;  in  consequence  of  which  they  received 
milk  and  honey,  which  concluded  the  ceremon3^" 

Here,  as  early  as  the  second  century,  we  find  that 
unauthorized  and  unscriptural  ceremonies  had  begun 
to  cluster  about  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  the  first  century.  And  here  I 
think  we  will  be  able,  incidentally^,  to  discover  some- 
thing in  reference  to  the  origin  of  trine  immersion. 
Says  the  historian  : 

"  The  sacrament  of  baptism  was  administered  in 
this  century,  without  the  public  assemblies,  in  places 
appointed  and  prepared  for  that  purpose,  and  was 
perforjned  by" — trine  immersion?  No — "  by  an  im- 
mersion of  the  whole  body  in  the  baptismal  font." 

During  the  second,  third,  fourth,  and  succeeding 
centuries,  numberless  extraneous  and  ridiculous  ob- 
servances gathered  around  this  beautiful  institution  of 
baptism  ;  and  here  we  first  discover  trine  immersion. 
But  when  we  go  back  to  the  first  century — the  cen- 
tury in  which  Jesus  Christ  was  baptized,  in  which  he 
gave  his  commission,  in  which  the  apostles  concluded 
their  labors — we  learn  that  baptism  was  performed 
by  "  an  immersion."  This  fact  alone  is  sufiicient  to 
rebut  all  the  arguments  of  my  friend,  backed  by  all 
the  commentators  he  has  brought  to  bear  upon  this 
point. 

My  friend  yesterday  spent  considerable  time  among 
the  lexicons,  from  which  he  attempted  to  prove  that 
the  Greek  word  haptizo  meant  to  immerse  repeatedly, 
or  fiequently.  I  have  before  me  the  testimony  of 
thirteen  of  the  most  eminent  and  learned  lexicogra- 
Dhers  of  the  Greek  language,  on  the  meaning  of  the 
6 


82  DEBATE  ON  TRINE   IMMERSION. 

word  haptizo ;  and  only  one  of  these  lexicons — that  of 
Donnegan,  whom  my  friend  quoted — intimate  that  the 
idea  of  repeated  action  is  in  the  word  haptizo;  the 
other  twelve  say  nothing  about  it.  Out  of  all  the  lex- 
icons of  the  Greek  lanoruao-e  that  have  ever  been  com- 
piled,  my  friend  has  been  able  to  find  three  that  in- 
timated that  the  idea  of  repeated  action  is  contained 
in  the  word.  In  Campbell  and  Rice's  Debate,  fifteen 
lexicons  are  quoted ;  eleven  of  these  say  nothing  about 
any  idea  of  repeated  action  in  the  word.  The  testi- 
mony of  the  lexicons  is  heavily  against  my  friend. 

I  intimated,  yesterday,  that  an  ultimate  appeal,  so 
far  as  the  definition  of  the  word  haptizo  was  concerned, 
would  be  made  to  the  classics.  It  is  to  be  supposed 
that  the  Greek  writers  knew  the  meaning  and  force 
of  the  words  of  their  own  lano-uao^e.  I  have  before 
me  eighty-six  examples  of  the  use  of  the  word  haptizo 
in  its  literal  and  physical  sense ;  but  not  one  of  them 
has  the  idea  of  repeated  immersion.  In  addition  to 
this  I  have  here  sixty-four  or  sixty-five  examples  of 
the  occurrence  of  the  word  in  its  metaphorical  sense  ; 
and  not  a  single  time  does  it  require  repeated  action. 
I  can  not,  of  course,  take  the  time  to  read  them  all ; 
but  I  will  refer  to  a  few  examples. 

I  will  first  read  from  Poly  hi  us'  History,  Book  I, 
chap,  li,  sec.  6:  "For  if  any  were  hard  pressed  by 
the  enemy,  they  retreated  safely,  on  account  of  their 
fast  sailing,  into  the  open  space;  and  then,  with  re- 
versed course,  now  sailing  around,  now  attacking  in 
flank,  the  more  advanced  of  the  pursuers,  while  turn- 
ing and  embarrassed  on  account  of  the  weight  of  the 
ships,  and  the  unskillfulness  of  the  crews,  they  made 
continued  assaults,  and  haptized  many  of  the  vessels." 
Again  (same  work),  Book  VIII,  chap,  viii,  sec.  4: 
''  Which  being  done,  some  of  the  vessels  fell  on  their 
side,  and  some  were  overturned ;  and  most  of  them, 
when  the  prow  was  let  fall  from  on  high,  being  hap- 


83 

iized^  were  filled  ^vith  sea- water  and  with  confusion." 
Is  there  any  indication  of  repeated  action  liere? 
How  many  times  is  it  necessary  for  a  vessel  to  bo 
submerged,  or  immersed,  in  order  to  become  filled  \Yith 
sea-water. 

Plutarch,  in  his  Life  of  Marcellus,  chap,  xv,  describ- 
ing the  same  operations,  speaking  of  the  arras  of  the 
engines  projecting  from  the  walls  over  the  vessels, 
says  :  **  Some  [of  the  vessels]  thrusting  down  under 
a  weight  firmly  fixed  above,  they  send  into  the  deep  ; 
others,  witli  iron  hands,  or  beaks,  like  those  of  cranes, 
hauling  up  by  the  prow  till  they  were  erect  on  the 
stern,  they  baptized.''^  Here,  it  will  be  seen,  there  is 
no  intimation  of  a  repeated  immersion.  All  the 
examples  that  can  be  culled  from  the  classics  are  of  a 
similar  character — no  hint  anywhere  of  any  frequenta- 
tive idea  being  connected  with  the  word.  My  friend 
knows  that  such  is  the  case.  With  this  I  dismiss  this 
branch  of  the  subject. 

Baptize,  says  my  friend,  means  to  immerse  repeat- 
edly, or  frequently.  But  these  are  indefinite  terms; 
they  may  mean  twice,  thrice,  or  seven,  or  ten,  x>r 
twenty  times;  no  one  knows.  Consequently,  no  man 
can  tell  whether  he  has  been  baptized  or  not. 

In  his  last  speech  yesterday,  my  friend  said,  refer- 
rino;  to  the  fact  that  the  name  of  the  Father  comes 
first  in  the  commission,  that  the  believer  must  come  to 
God  first;  that  Christ  said  (John,  vi :  44):  ''No 
man  can  come  to  me  except  the  Father  draw  him," 
indicating  that  the  work  of  the  Father  comes  first  in 
the  work  of  redemption.  True,  the  Father  draws  us 
toward  Christ;  but  we  are  on  the  other  side  of  Ciirist 
from  him,  and  he  draws  us  to  Christ,  that  we  may 
through  Christ  come  to  him.  Else,  what  is  the  use  of 
a  mediator  ?  My  friend's  interpretation  would  render 
a  mediator  unnecessary  in  the  great  scheme  of  salva- 
tion. 


84  DEBATE    ON   TRINE    IMMERSION. 

I  come  now  to  ray  friend's  last  speech.  He,  this 
morning,  quotes  a  number  of  texts  in  which,  where  a 
verb  is  suppressed  by  ellipsis,  a  repetition  of  action  is 
necessary.  His  first  quotation  is  from  Matthew,  xvii : 
15  :  "  Lord,  have  mercy  on  my  son  ;  for  he  is  a  luna- 
tic, and  sore  vexed;  for  oft-times  he  falleth  into  the 
fire,  and  oft  into  the  water."  But  the  cases  are  not 
parallel;  on  the  contrary,  they  are  as  opposite  as  it  is 
possible  for  two  cases  to  be:  The  two  elements  of 
fire  and  water  are  distinct,  separate,  incompatible  ; 
they  can  not  exist  together  in  such  a  way  that  it  is 
possible  for  a  person  to  fall  into  both  by  one  action. 
But  in  the  case  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  they  are  essentially  one  ;  at  least,  they  are  so 
united,  such  is  the  relationship  between  them,  that  it 
is  impossible  to  be  in  one  without  being  in  all.  When 
my  friend  succeeds  in  showing  that  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  as  separate,  as  different 
from  each  other,  as  opposite  in  their  natures  to  each 
other,  as  are  water  and  fire,  so  that  it  is  utterly  im- 
possible in  the  nature  of  things  for  a  man  to  be  bap- 
tized into  both  by  the  same  action,  then  he  may  make 
use  of  this  text  as  an  argument  for  trine  immersion. 

Mark,  v:  14,  is  another  of  his  examples:  "And 
they  that  fed  the  swine  fled,  and  told  it  in  the  city, 
and  in  the  country."  But,  mark  you :  While  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  the  one 
God,  and  the  believer  can  not  be  baptized  into  one 
without  being  baptized  into  all,  the  city  and  the 
country  are  not  one  and  the  same  place ;  a  person  can 
not  be  in  both  at  once;  telling  a  thing  to  the  city 
does  not  necessarily  include  telling  it  to  the  country. 
Tliere  is  no  force  in  his  example ;  the  cases  are  not 
parallel. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  his  last  example  (Mark 
xi :  11) :  "Jesus  entered  into  Jerusalem,  and  into  the 
temple."     Jerusalem  and  the  temple  arc  not  identical 


MR.    m'cOXNELL's    FIFTU    ADDRESS.  85 

places,  so  that  it  is  impossible  to  enter  one  without 
entering  the  otlier. 

My  friend  concluded  this  branch  of  his  argument 
by  saying:  "If  the  passages  that  he  [McConnell] 
quotes,  in  which  a  repetition  of  the  action  is  not  re- 
quired, prove  that  the  language  of  the  commission 
does  not  require  a  repetition  of  the  act  of  immersing, 
these  passages  in  which  a  repetition  of  action  is  re- 
quired, prove  that  the  language  of  the  commission 
does  require  a  repetition  of  the  act  of  immersing." 
This  by  no  means  follows.  The  fallacy  is  just  here: 
the  passages  which  he  quotes  are  not  similar  in  their 
construction,  and  the  cases  to  which  they  refer  are 
not  similar  in  their  nature,  to  the  commission. 
Neither  the  structure  nor  the  circumstances  being 
analogous,  no  argument  from  analogy  can  be  built 
upon  them.  Those  quoted  by  me  are  similar  in  con- 
struction— perfectly  analogous. 

My  friend,  having  finally  fixed  up  the  commission 
so  as  to  read  to  suit  him — "Baptizing  into  the  name 
of  the  Fatlier,  and  baptizitig  i!ito  the  name  of  the  Son, 
and  baptizing  into  the  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit " — pro- 
ceeds to  argue  that,  because  the  word  "baptizing" 
occurs  three  times,  there  must  necessarily  be  three 
actions.  But  this  does  not  follow.  Let  us  take  one 
of  the  sentences  already  referred  to  as  being  similar 
in  construction  (Luke,  ix^  26) :  "  '-^  *  when  he  shall 
come  in  his  own  glory,  and  in  his  Father's,  and  of  the 
holy  angels."  He  would  insist  upon  the  last  two 
phrases  being  filled  out  after  the  model  of  the  first, 
so  as  to  read,  "  when  he  shall  come  in  his  own  glory, 
and  shall  come  in  his  Father's  glory,  and  shall  come 
in  the  glory  of  his  holy  angels."  Well,  we  will  grant 
him  this  reading  of  the  passage,  for  the  sake  of  ar- 
gument. But  now  I  ask  my  friend  if  even  that 
reading — which  he  can  not  reject  consistently  with 
the  principles  he  has  laid  down — implies  three  dis- 


86  DEBATE  ON   TRINE  IMMERSION. 

tinct  actions? — that  Christ  shall  come  three  times?  I 
answer  emphatically^  No!  The  sentence,  even  when 
filled  out  according  to  his  method  of  expansion,  re- 
quires no  such  thing.  Try  any  other  parallel  passage 
in  the  same  way,  and  we  shall  discover  the  same  result. 
His  own  method  of  interpretation  takes  trine  im- 
mersion entirely  out  of  the  commission  ;  and  I  trust  it 
will  be  taken  out  of  his  heart,  and  out  of  his  practice, 
before  this  discussion  is  over. 

[The  speaker  here  read  from  Latham's  ^'  Hand-book 
of  the  English  Language  "  the  quotation  made  by  his 
opponent  in  his  last  speech,  and  was  about  to  com- 
ment upon  it,  when  he  was  informed  by  the  chairman 
of  the  Board  of  Moderators  that  his  time  had  expired.] 


[MR.  QUINTER'S  SIXTH  ADDRESS.] 

Friendly  Moderators — Before  proceeding  with 
the  regular  course  I  had  laid  down  to  pursue  in  the 
presentation  of  my  argument,  I  will  pay  a  little  atten- 
tion to  some  of  the  points  presented  by  my  friend  in 
his  last  speech. 

Yesterday,  I  commenced  my  argument  with  a  few 
remarks  on  the  Greek  word  baptizo,  and  the  English 
word  baptize,  explaining  that  some  of  the  best  lexi- 
conni'aphers  of  both  lanjxuao-es,  and  some  of  our  most 
learned  men,  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  peculiar  form 
of  baptizo,  of  which  baptize  is  the  anglicized  form,  is 
expressive  of  frequentative  or  repeated  action.  I  did 
not  claim  that  this  was  universally  acknowledged  and 
taught,  nor  that  the  word  uniformly  indicated  repeated 
action.  It  seems  to  be,  in  some  respects,  like  the 
English  pronoun  t/oii:  the  form  is  plural,  and  it  takes 
a  plural  verb  after  it;  but,  nevertheless,  it  does  some- 
times represent  persons  or  things  in  the  singular  num- 
ber.    It  seems  to  be  somewhat  so  with  the  Greek 


.Mli.    QillN'TKirS    SIXTH     ADDKKSS.  87 

word  haptlzo ;  the  general  appearance  conveys  an 
idea  of  plurality  or  repetition  of  action,  yet  it  is  un- 
doubteiUy  often  used  in  reference  to  a  single  action, 
as  the  word  you  is  often  used  in  reference  to  a 
single  person.  Such  seems  to  be  the  idea  that  has 
somehow  been  obtained  by  several  of  the  leading  lexi- 
cographers, such  as  Bretschneider,  Donnegan,  Liddcll 
and  Scott,  etc.  Yesterday,  my  friend  here  seemed  to 
think  that  this  argument  did  not  amount  to  much  ;  but 
it  appears  that  last  night,  in  thinking  over  the  matter, 
he  discovered  that  there  was  something  more  in  it 
than  he  had  at  first  suspected ;  so,  in  his  speech  this 
morning,  he  brings  the  subject  up  again.  Having 
said  what  I  have  upon  the  subject,  in  order  that  it 
may  go  forth  wherever  this  discussion  may  go,  and 
have  such  weight  as  it  deserves,  whether  that  be  more 
or  less,  I  will  now  drop  the  matter  again,  and  if  he 
will  drop  it  now,  as  he  said  he  would  yesterday,  it  will 
stay  dropped. 

In  regard  to  the  quotations  from  Scripture  that  I 
presented  as  being  similar  in  construction  to  the  com- 
mission, he  claims  that  the  argument  is  not  applicable 
because  the  cases  are  not  similar ;  that  the  lunatic 
falling  into  the  water  and  into  the  fire,  the  Saviour 
going  into  Jerusalem  and  into  the  temple,  etc.,  refer 
to  different  things  or  places,  while  he  insists  that  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  one.  I  con- 
tend that  whatever  unity  may  exist,  there  is  repre- 
sented a  plain  distinction  in  name,  in  character,  in 
ofiice,  between  the  three,  with  regard  to  the  great  work 
of  human  redemption.  I  do  not  look  upon  them  pre- 
cisely as  upon  three  places  or  three  houses ;  they 
present  themselves  to  the  mind  in  a  moral,  not  a  ma- 
terial, point  of  view  ;  in  the  mind  we  conceive  of  them 
as  three  different  characters,  in  which  the  Godhead  is 
presented  to  our  consideration.  And  in  the  formula 
for  administering  baptism  we  find  them  presented,  not 


88  DEBATE    ON    TPaXE    IMMEllSION. 

in  their  unity,  but  in  their  plurality.  The  distinction 
in  character  and  office  is  clearly  and  emphatically  set 
forth  in  the  construction  of  the  language  used,  with 
the  evident  design  that  such  distinction  should  be  re- 
coo;nized  in  the  administration  of  the  ordinance.  How 
similar,  or  how  unlike,  the  three  persons,  or  characters, 
in  the  Godhead  may  be,  is  not  declared  in  the  com- 
mission ;  they  are  here  named  separately,  presented 
before  us  in  their  distinct  characters,  and  a  command 
given  to  baptize  into  each.  He  may  say  that  the  ad- 
mission or  the  acceptation  of  the  construction  of  the 
commission  that  I  have  insisted  on  as  being  gram- 
matical and  correct,  would  not  require  repeated  action. 
But  I  produce  sentences  of  similar  construction  that 
do  require  repeated  action ;  and  if  my  assertion  that 
they  are  similar  in  construction  is  correct,  the  lan- 
guage of  the  commission  also  requires  repeated  action. 
He  claims  that  the  passages  are  7iot  similar  in  con- 
struction;  and  at  this  point  I  leave  the  whole  matter 
with  you  to  decide  for  yourselves.  I  do  not  wish  to 
misrepresent  him  in  the  least. 

VI.  /  will  notv  proceed  ivitli  my  sixth  argument, 
which  may  he  called  the  historical  argument — drawn 
from  the  practice  the  primitive  Christians  observed  in 
performing  baptism. 

That  practice,  as  stated  by  writers  of  ecclesiastical 
history  and  Christian  antiquities,  is  trine  immersion. 
In  support  of  this,  I  will  first  read  the  positive  dec- 
laration of  Bingham,  in  his  "Antiquities  of  the 
Christian  Church,''  page  539  :  "  But  1  must  observe 
further,  that  they  not  only  administered  baptism  by 
immersion  under  Avater,  but  also  repeated  this  tliree 
times." 

Dr.  William  Cave,  in  his  popular  work,  entitled 
*' Primitive  Christianity,"  in  speaking  of  immersion 
as  the  mode  of  baptism  practiced  by  the  first  Chris- 


MR.    (>UINTi:irS    srXTlI    ADDRKSS.  89 

tians,  says  :  "This  immersion -was  performed  thrice, 
the  person  baptized  beinnr  three  several  times  put 
under  water — a  custom  which  Basil  and  Sozomen  will 
have  derived  from  the  apostles.  It  is  certain  that  it 
was  very  early  in  the  church,  being  twice  mentioned 
by  TertuUian  as  the  common  practice."     [P.  157.] 

Dr.  Wall  says:  "The  way  of  trine  immersion,  or 
plunging  the  head  of  the  person  three  times  into 
the  water,  was  the  general  practice  of  all  antiquity." 
[History  of  Infmt  Baptism,  Vol.  II,  p.  419.] 

I  have  a  number  of  similar  testimonies  before  me, 
but  I  will  not  present  them  on  this  occasion,  preferring 
to  give  the  argument  another  form,  that  will  meet  my 
friend's  notice  of  the  historical  aspect  of  this  subject, 
without  lengthening  it  to  an  unseemly  extent. 

My  friend  has  intimated,  if  I  have  understood  the 
bearing  of  his  remarks  upon  this  subject,  that  he 
deemed  historical  testimony  of  very  little  account  in 
this  argument.  Upon  this  point,  I  will  read  to  you 
an  extract  from  Alexander  Campbell,  showing  his  itlea 
of  the  importance  of  historical  testimony  in  relation 
to  baptism  : 

"The  historians  tell  us  w^hat  the  ancients  did  under 
the  name  *  baptism ;'  they  record  certain  acts,  and 
then  call  them  by  this  word.  They  are,  then,  stronger 
proofs  to  the  great  mass  of  society  than  dictionaries, 
grammars,  classics,  translators,  or  anything  in  the 
form  of  mere  language.  History  is  now  the  favorite, 
the  growing  favorite,  in  all  departments  of  phi- 
losophy. The  history  of  nature  is  philosophy ;  the 
history  of  plants  is  botany  ;  the  history  of  animals  is 
zoology;  the  history  of  man  is  anthropography,  and 
the  history  of  the  church  is  Christianity  :  I  mean  the 
whole  church — primitive,  ancient,  and  modern.  The 
history  of  baptism  is,  therefore,  the  philology  of  the 
word;  it  is  the  history  of  the  human  mind  on  that 
subject,  of  all  men,  of  all  nations,  of  all  ages  of  the 


90  DEBATE    ON    TRINE    IM.MERSION. 

cliiirch.  Whenever  the  history  of  baptism  is  fully 
read,  and  by  whomsoever,  there  will  not  remain  one 
doubt  on  the  meaning  of  haptho.  I  affirm,  without 
fear  of  successful  contradiction,  that  all  cliristendom, 
Hebrew,  Greek,  Roman,  and  modern,  down  to  quite  a 
comparatively  recent  period,  practiced  immersion.  I 
have  given  you  already,"  adds  Mr.  Campbell,  "  the 
testimony  of  the  celebrated  Dr.  Whitby,  of  the  Church 
of  England,  affirming  that  immersion  was  justly  ob- 
served from  the  beginning,  for  thirteen  hundred  years, 
without  any  exception  by  aul,hority,  except  in  the 
case  of  sick  and  dying  persons;  that  it  was  changed 
into  sprinkling  without  any  allowance  by  Jesus  Christ, 
without  any  license  from  any  council  of  the  Church, 
and  that  the  Romanists  refuse  the  sacramental  cup  to 
the  laity  on  account  of  the  indulgence  claimed  in 
changing  immersion  into  sprinkling.  This  being  an 
indisputable  fact,  what  need  have  we  of  all  this  con- 
troversy about  the  meaning  of  words  ?  This  fact  is 
worth  all  the  languages,  dictionaries,  commentators, 
and  critics,  of  two  thousand  years."  [Campbell  and 
Rice's  Debate,  p.  248.] 

Now,  if  Mr.  Campbell's  judgment  upon  this  subject 
be  correct,  the  historical  argument  bearing  upon  bap- 
tism is  one  of  paramount  importance,  and  not  to  be 
set  aside  so  lightly  as  my  friend  here  would  seem  to 
intimate.  And  looking  at  the  matter  from  a  historic 
stand-point,  all  the  testimony  that  Mr.  Campbell  here 
refers  to  for  single  immersion,  I  claim  for  trine  immer- 
sion. I  will  read  a  few  words  further  from  Mr.  Camp- 
bell:  "Not  only  Mosheim,  Neander,  but  all  the  his- 
torians, as  well  as  Professor  Stuart,  trace  immersion 
back  to  the  times  of  the  apostles."     [P.  258.] 

Now,  some  of  you  know  that  in  some  of  the  early 
copies  of  this  work  (The  Campbell  and  Rice  Debate), 
the  word  "trine"  was  before  the  woid  "immersion  " 
in   the   above   sentence ;   and  some   of  our  brethren 


MU.    tiUINTKU's    SIXTH    AI>1)1U:.SP.  91 

quoted  this  pnssnge  in  tlieir  controversies  with  the 
Disciples;  and  I  do  not  wonder  at  it;  for  if  they 
thought  that  Mr.  Canipijell  taught  tliat  the  liistoriaiis 
traced  trine  immersion  back  to  tlie  times  of  the  apos- 
tles, it  was  certainly  a  stiong  and  pertinent  argument 
in  favor  of  trine  immersion.  Mr.  Campbell  was  writ- 
ten to  upon  the  subject,  and  the  editors  of  the  Har- 
hinger  were  written  to,  and,  for  a  time,  there  was  quite 
a  stir  among  them  to  get  the  matter  set  right ;  finally, 
Mr.  Campbell  denied  the  authorship  of  the  word 
*'  trine,"  and  there  the  matter  rested.  I  have  never 
used  the  quotation,  and  do  not  now  use  it,  with  the 
word  "trine"  in  it,  as  Mr.  Campbell  has  denied  hav- 
ing written  that  word  in  the  sentence.  But  I  want  to 
show  you,  and  I  think  I  shall  be  able  to  show  you, 
that,  if  Mr.  Campbell  did  not  connect  the  word 
"  trine  "  with  the  immersion  that  the  historians  trace 
back  to  the  apostles,  it  ought  to  be  so  connected ;  for 
if  they  trace  any  immersion  back  to  the  apostles,  it  is 
trine  immersion. 

•  My  friend  read  to  you  an  extract  from  Mosheim,  in 
relation  to  baptism  in  the  first  century.  I  want  to 
read  it  to  you  again,  because  there  is  a  note  at  the 
bottom  of  the  page,  a  reference  to  the  authority  upon 
which  he  grounds  his  assertion  in  reference  to  baptism, 
to  which  I  wish  to  direct  your  attention.  Mosheim's 
language  is  :  "The  sacrament  of  baptism  was  admin- 
istered in  this  century,  without  the  public  assem- 
blies, in  places  appointed  and  prepared  for  that 
purpose,  and   was   performed  by^  immersion   of  the 


*At  this  point  the  speaker  diiicovered  that  the  vrord  "an,"  to 
which  his  opponent  had  particularly  referred  in  commenting  upon 
this  passage,  was  not  in  the  text  before  him  ;  and  on  examinution  it 
•was  discovered  that  the  debatants  had  different  editions  of  the  work, 
one  of  which  contained  the  article  "an"  before  the  word  ''immer- 
sion," and  the  otlier  did  not.  The  remarks  in  this  connection,  if 
printed  as  they  were  spoken,  would  interrupt  the  argument,  so  we 
make  this  explanation  in  a  foot- note. — Rkpoutek, 


92  DEBATE    ON    TRINE    EMMERSION. 

whole  body  in  the  baptismal  font."  [Church  History, 
Vol.  I,  p.  12(3.] 

Now,  as  Mosheim  did  not  himself  live  in  the  first 
century,  he  must  have  obtained  his  information  from 
historians  who  lived  and  wrote  and  studied  into  these 
matters  before  him,  who,  in  turn,  received  their  informa- 
tion from  writers  of  preceding  ages.  By  referring  to 
the  note  at  the  bottom  of  the  page  of  Mosheim's  his- 
tory, on  which  we  find  the  above  passage,  we  find  that 
his  first  authority  is  Vossius — John  Girard  Yossius. 
And  referring  to  Vossius,  we  find  that  he  uses  the 
following  language :  "  What  son  of  the  church  will 
not  willingly  hold  to  that  custom  which  the  ancient 
church  practiced  all  over  the  world,  except  Spain," 
etc.  "Besides,"  adds  Vossius,  "at  present  the  trine 
immersion  is  used  in  all  countries."  [Wall's  History 
of  Infant  Baptism,  Vol.  II,  p.  424.] 

This  is  the  statement  of  Vossius,  the  writer  referred 
to  by  Mosheim  in  his 'history  of  baptism  in  the  first 
century.  Vossius  traces  trine  immersion  back  to  the 
first  century — states  it  to  have  been  the  universal 
practice  of  the  church  in  the  first  century. 

My  friend  told  us  yesterday  that  the  gap  between 
Tertullian  and  the  apostles  must  be  filled  up.  I  have 
done  so.  I  have  gone  to  the  authority  on  which  Mos- 
heim grounds  his  assertion  that  immersion  was  the 
practice  in  the  first  century,  and  I  find  not  only  that, 
but  more  :  I  find  that  the  immersion  practiced  in  the 
first  century  was  tririe  immersion.  I  have  the  very 
same  authority  for  this  that  Mosheim  has  for  any  im- 
mersion at  all.  If  I  went  down  the  stream  yesterday, 
I  am  to-day  going  up  the  stream,  and  filling  the  gaps 
that  my  friend  declared  I  left  open. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  Mosheim's  History  of  Ba[)tism  in 
the  second  century.  He  says:  "The  sacrament  of 
baptism  Avas  administered  twice  every  year,  at  the  fes- 
tivals of  Easter  and  Pentecost,"  etc.  [P.  226.]    Then, 


MR.    QUINTER's    sixth    ADDRESS.  93 

by  looking  at  the  notes,  we  can  discover  how  it  -svas 
ndinini-stored.  By  rcferrino;  to  the  foot  of  the  pap^e 
for  Ills  authority,  \ve  find  it  to  be  "WalTs  History  of 
Infant  Baptism."  ]^ut  we  have  already  read  Wall's 
testimony  as  to  the  manner  hw^^U^va.  was  administered: 
*'  The  way  of  trine  immersion,  or  plunging  the  head 
of  the  person  three  times  into  the  water,  was  the 
general  praefice  of  all  aniiqidli/."  [History  of  Infant 
Baptisni,  Vol.  II,  p.  419.] 

Thus  you  see  that  the  authorities  upon  which  Mos- 
heim  grounds  his  statements  in  regard  to  baptism  in 
the  first  and  second  centuries  having  been  performed 
by  immersion,  are  authors  who  state  that  the  immer- 
sion then  practiced  was  trine  immersion. 

Mr.  Campbell  says,  as  I  have  before  read  to  you  : 
*'Not  only  Mosheim,  Neander,  but  all  the  historians, 
as  well  as  Professor  Stuart,  trace  immersion  back  to 
the  times  of  the  apostles."  Let  us  see  what  Neander 
says:  ''Then,  there  was  the  trine  immersion  of  bap- 
tism, as  symbolically  making  the  reference  to  God 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  This,  too, 
was  a  symbol  that  arose  out  of  the  Christian  idea,  but 
not  necessarily  connected  with  it."  [Neander's  Plant- 
ing of  Christianity,  Vol.  II,  p.  271.J 

Neander  had  a  philosophical  mind,  as  German  com- 
mentators generally  have,  and  this  doctrine  of  trine 
immersion  seemed  to  him  an  appropriate  symbol 
arising  out  of  the  Christian  idea — the  idea  of  the  dis- 
tinction into  characters,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit;  a  kind  of  off-shoot,  a  corollary,  a  natu- 
ral deduction  of  a  logical  mind.     So  it  seems  to  me. 

Prof.  Stuart,  another  of  the  authors  referred  to  by 
Mr.  Campbell  as  tracing  immersion  back  to  the  apos- 
tolic times,  does  so  in  the  followinf:r  Iano;uaf2;e  :  "  The 
mode^of  baptism  by  immersion,  the  Oriental  Church 
has  always  continued  to  preserve,  even  down  to  the 
present  time.     The  members  of  this  church  are  ac- 


94  DEBATE    ON   THINE    IMMERSION. 

customed  to  call  the  members  of  the  western  churches, 
'sprinkled  Christians,' by  way  of  ridicule  and  con- 
tempt. They  maintain  that  baptizo  can  mean  nothing 
but  immerge;  and  that  'baptism  by  sprinkling'  is  as 
great  a  solecism  as  'immersion  by  aspersion;'  and 
they  claim  to  themselves  the  honor  of  having  pre- 
served the  ancient  sacred  rite  of  the  church  free  from 
change  and  from  corruption,  which  would  destroy  its 
significancy." 

The  above  language  is  quoted  by  Mr.  Campbell,  in 
Campbell  and  Rice's  Debate,  pages  258,  259,  to  prove 
immersion.  But  it  proves  immersion  no  more  strongly 
than  it  does  trine  immersion;  for  the  Oriental  or 
Greek  Church  not  only  practices  trine  immersion,  but 
believes  it  essential  to  baptism.  So  the  very  author- 
ities and  arguments  used  by  immersionists  ^  prove 
immersion  to  have  been  the  practice  in  the  primitive 
church,  I  claim  in  favor  of  trine  immersion;  for  the 
immersion  so  traced  back  is  trine  immersion.  Now, 
where  is  the  gap  my  friend  yesterday  thought  I  had 
left  between  Tertullian  and  the  apostles?  It  is  filled 
up  completely,  according  to  this  chain  of  historic  tes- 
timony. 

In  this  connection,  I  will  read  another  remark  of 
Professor  Stuart's,  bearing  upon  this  subject,  and 
likewise  conveying  another  idea.  The  passage  is 
quoted  by  Mr.  Campbell,  who  evidently  indorses  the 
idea  relative  to  the  importance  of  the  historic  testi- 
mony: '-If,  then,  we  are  left  in  doubt  after  the  piiilo- 
logical  investigation  of  baptizo,  how  much  it  neces- 
sarily implies  ;  if  the  circumstances  which  are  related 
as  accompanying  this  rite,  so  far  as  the  New  Testa- 
ment has  given  them,  leave  us  still  in  doubt;  if  we 
can  not  trace  with  any  certainty  the  Jewish  proselyte 
baptism  to  a  period  as  early  as  the  baptism  of  John 
and  Jesus,  so  as  to  draw  any  inferences  with  proba- 
bility from  this,  still,  wc  are  left  in  no  doubt  as  to  the 


MR.    QUINTEIVS    SIXTH    ADDRESS.  95 

more  c^eneral  usage  of  the  Christian  Church  down  to 
a  porio'l  several  ceiituries  afrer  tlic  apostolic  nf:;e." 

This  ''general  iisnge  of  the  Christian  Cliurch,"  upon 
■which  Professor  Stuart  lays  so  much  stress  as  decisive 
evidence  upon  this  [)oint,  I  have  shown  to  be  in  favor 
of  trine  immersion. 

As  resjards  those  additions  and  unauthorized  cere- 
monies  that  were  thrown  about  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism in  the  early  age  of  the  church,  there  is  this  dif- 
ference between  them  and  trine  immersion  :  they  had 
no'f  )undation  in  the  Word  of  God,  the  command  of 
Christ,  or  the  example  of  the  apostles  ;  and  none  of  the 
Christian  Fathers  ever  made  any  such  claim  in  their 
behalf,  so  far  as  my  friend  has  yet  told  us,  or  so  far 
as  my  reading  extends.  Tertullian,  and  Chrysostom, 
and  Pelagius,  do  not  inform  us  that  they  find  the  cus- 
tom of  exorcising  the  devil  from  the  candidates  for 
baptism,  or  throwing  salt  into  their  mouths,  or  any 
other  of  the  silly  ceremonies  connected  wdth  the  ordi- 
nance in  those  days,  commanded  in  the  Scriptures. 
But  they  do  inform  us  that  the  practice  of  trine  immer- 
sion they  draw  directly  from  the  commission.  Hence, 
I  have  nothing  to  do  with  those  other  appendages  to 
baptism;  they  have  no  relevancy  in  the  argument. 

In  the  single  minute  which  is  all  of  my  present  half- 
hour  that  remains  to  me,  I  have  only  time  to  say,  that 
it  must  be  known  to  the  careful  reader  that  single 
immersion  is  of  quite  modern  date.  Previous  to  that, 
up  the  ages,  till  the  time  of  the  apostles,  trine  immer- 
sion was  the  rule — as  Dr.  Wall  well  expresses  it,  '*  the 
general  practice  of  all  antiquity."  So  you  see  we 
can  trace  our  beautiful,  significant,  expressive  ordi- 
nance of  trine  immersion,  so  eloquently  representing 
the  three-fold  character  of  the  Divinity — the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit — back  to  the  apostolic 
age,  to  the  commission  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Ciirist. 
\_Time  expired. 


96  DEBATE    ON   TRINE    IMMERSION. 

[MR.  McCONNELL'S  SIXTH  ADDRESS.] 

Gentlemen  Moderators — In  my  last  speech  I  came 
to  this  point:  Mv  friend  had  asserted  that,  in  an 
elliptical  sentence,  like  the  one  before  us  for  consid- 
eration, the  whole  of  the  first  proposition  was  the 
model  after  which  that  or  those  which  were  connected 
therewith,  must  be  constructed.  His  authority  for 
this  was  Latham's  "  Hand-book  of  the  English  Lan- 
guage," from  which  he  read  a  rule,  or  declaration, 
to  that  effect.  Now  that  we  are  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  grammatical  analysis,  I  want  to  spend  a  very 
little  time  in  spreading  before  this  audience,  the  com- 
pound and  somewhat  complicated  sentence  consti- 
tuting the  commission,  as  presented  in  Matthew 
xxviii :  19  :  *'  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

This  is  a  compound  sentence.  One  of  its  clauses, 
the  predicate,  is  compound.  The  subject  is  "ye" 
— that  of  which  something  is  affirmed.  The  predi- 
cates are  "  go"  and  "  teach  ; "  they  express  what  is 
affirmed  of  the  subject.  The  object  is  "nations;"  it 
is  that  on  which  the  act  expressed  by  the  predicate 
"teach"  terminates.  The  subject  "ye  "is  modified 
by  the  participial  phrase,  "baptizing  them."  Of  this, 
"baptizing"  is  the  leader — introducing  the  phrase; 
"  them"  is  the  subsequent — following  the  leader  as  its 
object.  "  Baptizing"  is  modified  by  the  propositional 
phrase,  "  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  In  this  phrase,  "  in  "  is  the 
leader;  "name"  is  the  subsequent,  modified  by 
"the;"  also  modified  by  the  prepositional  phrases, 
"of  the  Father,"  and  "of  the  Son,"  and  "of  the 
Holy  Spirit."  In  each  of  these  prepositional  phrases, 
"of"  is  the  leader,  introducing  the  phrase.  In  the 
first,  "  Father  "  is  the  subsequent,  modified  by  "  the  ;  " 


MR.    M'CONNELL's    SLXTU    ADDRESS.  97 

in  the  second,  "  Son  "  is  tlic  su])seqnent,  modified  by 
"the;"  in  the  third,  "Holy  Spirit"  is  the  subse- 
quent, mojlifiod  by  "the."  "Nations"  is  the  object, 
modified  by  "all."  "Therefore"  is  a  conjunction, 
introducing  the  sentence.  "And"  is  a  conjunction, 
connecting  "go"  and  "teach"  in  tlie  predicate.  In 
the  prepositional  phrase,  "and"  connects  "Father" 
and  "  Son,"  and  "  Son  "  and  "  Holy  Spirit."  Now, 
those  of  you  who  are  acquainted  with  the  proper 
method  of  grammatical  analysis,  and  have  followed  me 
while  analyzing  the  language  of  the  commission,  can 
not  but  see  that  "  and,"  in  the  first  portion  of  the  sen- 
tence, connects  "  go  "  and  "  teach  ;  "  and  in  the  sec- 
ond, connects  "  Father  "  and  "  Son,"  and  "  Son"  and 
"Holy  Spirit,"  instead  of  having  the  effect  to  bring 
the  modifying  phrase,  "  baptizing,"  etc.,  down  after  it 
again  on  each  occasion.  You  will  see  that  my  friend 
did  not  follow  the  rule  given  by  his  own  authority. 
He  claims  that  the  conjunction  "and"  does  not  con- 
nect "  Father  "  and  "  Son,"  and  "  Son  "  and  "  Holy 
Spirit."  That  sounded  very  strange  to  me.  But  what, 
tlien,  would  he  say  they  connect  ?  Why,  "  baptizing  " 
and  "baptizing;"  that  is,  the  "baptizing"  that  is 
there,  with  a  "  baptizing  "  that  is  not  there.  I  do  not 
see  the  force  of  his  criticism.  But  I  will  leave  the 
whole  matter  where  it  is.  I  do  not  claim  to  be  much 
of  a  grammarian. 

I  will  now  turn  my  attention  to  some  other  points 
presented  by  my  friend.  He  bases  an  argument  in 
favor  of  trine  immersion,  upon  the  fact  that  Paul  ad- 
mitted a  plurality  of  immersions.  (Hewbrews,  vi :  1, 
2.)  I  will  repeat  the  passage,  but  I  will  first  read  a 
portion  of  the  preceding  chapter,  that  is  so  intimately 
connected  with  it,  that  it  must  be  taken  into  consid- 
eration with  it,  in  order  to  arrive  at  a  correct  under- 
standing of  what  the  apostle  intends  to  preach.  Let  us 
commence  at  the  twelfth  verse  of  the  preceding  chap- 


98  DEBATE   ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

ter  :  "  For  when  for  the  time"  [or,  at  the  time  when] 
**ye  ought  to  be  teaehers^jQ  liave  need  that  one  teach 
you  again  which  be  the  first  principles  of  the  oracles 
of  God ;  and  are  become  such  as  have  need  of  milk, 
and  not  of  strong  meat;  [verse  13:]  for  every  one 
that  useth  milk  is  unskillful  in  the  word  of  righteous- 
ness :  for  he  is  a  babe  ;  [verse  14  :]  but  strong  meat 
belongeth  to  them  that  are  of  full  age."  Now,  the 
same  apostle,  in  his  letter  to  the  Galatians  (chapter 
iv),  represents  the  entire  Jewish  nation  as  children, 
until  "  the  fullness  of  the  time  was  come,"  when  "  God 
sent  forth  his  Son,  to  redeem  them  that  were  under 
the  law ; "  and  here,  in  his  letter  to  the  Hebrews,  he 
speaks  of  those  who  are  "  unskillful  in  the  word  of 
righteousness"  as  children.  So,  children,  or  babes, 
who  have  need  to  be  taught  again  "  the  first  principles 
of  the  oracles  of  God,"  are  those  "  that  were  under 
the  law."  Now,  these  Hebrews,  to  whom  Paul  was 
writing,  exhibited  a  constant  tendency  to  go  back  to 
the  ceremonies  of  the  Levitical  priesthood,  and  seek 
justification  by  obedience  to  the  law  ;  and  it  was  to 
counteract  this  disposition  that  the  apostle  exhorts 
the  Hebrews:  "Therefore,  leaving  the  principles  of 
the  doctrine  of  Christ,  let  us  go  on  unto  perfection  ; 
not  laying  again  the  foundation  of  repentance  from 
dead  works,  and  of  fiiith  toward  Qod,  of  the  doctrine 
of  baptisms,  and  of  laying  on  of  hands,  and  of  res- 
urrection of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal  judgment." 
Now  for  a  little  running  comment  on  the  passage  be- 
fore us.  What  were  those  "  dead  works  ?"  Evidently 
works  of  the  law,  from  which  they  had  once  repented ; 
if  they  should  go  back  to  them  they  would  lay  the  foun- 
dation for  a  second  repentance.  ''And  of  faith  toward 
God:"  tlie  seventh  chapter  of  Acts  contains  a  sum- 
mary of  the  evidence  upon  which  the  Jews  built  their 
faith  toward  God  ;  and  to  go  back  to  the  works  of  the 
law,  would  be  to  render  necessary  the  revival  of  the 


MK.    m'cONNKLL's    sixth    ADDRESS.  99 

Jewish  religion  in  order  to  faitli  toward  God.  *'  Of 
the  doctrine  of  baptisms:"  under  the  law  tliere  were 
(Hebrews,  ix :  10)  '"divers  washin<:5S  and  carnal  ordi- 
nances imposed  on  them  until  the  time  of  reforma- 
tion." In  fact,  the  only  places  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment where  I  find  any  reference  to  a  plurality  of  im- 
mersions are  these  two  passages — Hebrews,  vi :  2, 
connected  with  arguments  used  to  prevent  the  con- 
verted Jews  from  going  back  to  Judaism  ;  and  Hebrews, 
ix  :  10,  where  "  divers  immersions  "  (diaphorois  bap- 
tismois)  are  expressly  classed  with  the  ''  carnal  ordi- 
nances "  of  the  Mosaic  law.  "Of  hxying  on  of 
hands:"  under  the  Mosaic  law,  when  a  Jew  brought 
an  offering  to  the  Lord,  the  imposition  of  hands  was 
necessary.  Leviticus,  i :  4 :  "And  he  shall  put  his 
hand  upon  the  head  of  the  burnt  offering,  and  it  shall 
be  accepted  for  him  to  make  an  atonement  for  him  ;" 
and  scores  of  other  places.  Paul  exhorted  the  con- 
verted Jews  not  to  go  back  to  these  ceremonies. 
"And  of  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal  judg- 
ment:" these  are  disposed  of  in  the  same  manner. 
Leaving  these  first  principles — the  dead  works  of  the 
hiw,  the  laying  on  of  hands,  the  divers  washings  and 
carnal  ordinances  imposed  on  the  Jews  till  the  time 
of  reformation — "let  us  go  on  unto  perfection."  For 
(Hebrews,  vii :  19),  "  The  law  made  nothing  perfect, 
but  the  bringing  in  of  a  better  hope  did;  by  the  which 
■we  draw  nigh  unto  God."  And  the  apostle  warns 
them  of  the  fearful  consequences  of  apostacy ;  for  if 
the}'  fall  away  from  Christ,  it  is  impossible  "to  renew 
them  again  to  repentance ;  seeing  they  crucify  to 
then)selves  the  Son  of  God  afresh,  and  put  him  to  an 
open  shame."  The  adherents  of  the  law  had  cruci- 
fied Christ,  and  put  him  to  public  shame ;  now,  if  you 
return  to  the  law,  you  will  renounce  Christ,  and 
thereby  indorse  the  crucifying  of  him,  which  will  be 
equivalent  to  a  second  crucifixion.     Our  friends,  the 


100  DEBATE    ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

Tonkers,  are  contending  for  "  divers  immersions  ;'* 
but  the  only  place  where  they  can  find  them  is  in 
Judaism.  They  are — unwittingly,  I  believe — doing 
the  very  thing  the  apostle  warns  the  Jews  against — 
going  back  to  the  "carnal  ordinances"  of  the  Mosaic 
dispensation. 

Macknight,  in  his  comment  on  the  passage  under 
consideration,  says :  "  I  agree  with  Pierce,  in  think- 
ing that  'the  principles  of  Christ'  means  the  prin- 
ciples (or  elements)  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ  as  con- 
tained in  the  doctrines  of  Moses  and  the  prophets." 

But  Paul  has  not  left  us  in  the  dark  as  to  how  many 
immersions  belong  to  the  Christian  dispensation.  My 
friend  agrees  with  me  that  bapdzo,  when  properly 
translated,  means  to  immerse,  dip,  plunge,  over- 
whelm ;  should  be  rendered  by  some  term  equivalent 
to  the  English  word  "  immerse."  To  baptize  is  to 
immerse;  and  a  baptism  is  an  immersion.  And  Paul 
says,  in  his  letter  to  the  Ephesians  (chap,  iv :  verses 
4,  5):  "There  is  one  body,  and  one  spirit,  even  as  ye 
are  called  in  one  hope  of  your  calling;  one  Lord,  one 
faith,  one  (baptisma)  immersion."  Here  Paul  dis- 
tinctly and  emphatically  says  there  is  one  immersion 
— not  a  multitude,  as  my  friend  contends.  We  will 
leave  that  for  him  and  the  apostle  Paul  to  settle  be- 
tween them. 

My  friend  says  that  baptizo  is  similar  to  the  English 
pronoun  "you,"  which  is  plural  in  form,  but  some- 
times singular  in  sense.  I  can  not  see  the  resem- 
blance :  for  baptizo  is  not  plural  in  form  ;  it  is  singular 
in  form,  and  has  its  regular  plural,  like  most  other 
words;  and  like  them,  when  singular  in  form,  is  sin- 
gular in  sense,  and  when  plural  in  form,  is  plural  in 
sense.  I  can  not  see  that  it  is  like  the  pronoun 
"you"  in  any  respect;  consequently  I  can  not  see 
any  force  in  that  argument. 

My  friend  argues  for  three  immersions,  from  the  fact 


MR.    m'cONNELL'S    sixth    ADDRESS.  101 

timt  there  are  tlirce  names  in  the  commission  ;  three 
characters,  three  offices,  tliree  personalities,  if  you 
please,  in  the  great  work  of  human  salvation.  Grant- 
ing his  premises,  we  do  not  see  that  any  such  conclu- 
sion is  legitimate.  Whatever  he  calls  them — three 
offices,  three  characters,  or  three  persons — it  does  not 
follow  that  three  actions  are  necessary.  In  many 
human  associations,  pecuniary,  educational,  etc.,  there 
are  three  leading  officers,  a  president,  a  secretary,  and 
a  treasurer.  These  three  offices  are  held  by  different 
persons,  called  b}^  different  names.  There  is  a  clear 
distinction  between  them,  individually  and  officially, 
but  unity  in  association.  Now,  when  a  man  becomes 
a  member  of  such  an  association  he  recognizes  the 
official  authority  of  each  of  these.  But  is  it  true 
that  he  must  perform  the  same  initiatory  act  three 
times  in  order  to  do  this?  For  instance,  the  condi- 
tions are  these :  you  must  sign  your  name  to  an  in- 
strument recognizing  the  authority  of  the  president, 
secretary,  and  treasurer.  Would  any  man  consider  it 
necessary  for  him  to  sign  his  name  three  times? 
Certainly  not.  Now,  baptism  is  that  instrument  in 
which  the  authority  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  recognized;  and  he  who  is  once  bap- 
tized, signs  that  instrument  once.  As  once  signing 
is  a  recognition  of  the  authority  of  all  the  three  offi- 
cers, there  is,  therefore,  no  need  of  repeating  it  twice. 
God  does  not  require  vain  repetitions,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, expressly  forbids  them  (Matthew,  vi :  7):  "  Use 
not  vain  repetitions,  as  the  heathen  do."  Again: 
Suppose  a  certain  work  is  to  be  done  for  that  associ- 
ation. The  president  appoints  the  man  to  do  it;  the 
secretary  informs  him  of  his  appointment;  and  the 
treasurer  becomes  paymaster.  The  man  thus  ap- 
pointed proceeds  to  do  the  work  once  ;  does  he  not 
thereby  recognize  the  authority  of  these  distinct  per- 
sons in  their  respective  official  positions?  or,  because 


102  DEBATE    ON    TKINE    IMMERSION. 

there  are  three  official  characters  involved  in  the  con- 
tract, must  he  do  the  same  thing  three  times,  in  order 
to  do  it  once?  Application  :  We  have  a  divine  asso- 
ciation for  the  salvation  of  man,  with  three  official 
characters — the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit.  This  association  requires  men  to  be  baptized 
in  recognition  of  their  three  official  characters.  As 
these  are  a  plurality  in  office,  but  unity  in  the  pur- 
poses and  requirements  of  the  association,  one  immer- 
sion performed  in  obedience  to  the  authority  of  the 
association  represented  by  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  a  submis- 
sion to  and  a  recognition  of  the  authority  of  each ; 
and  therefore  only  one  immersion  is  necessary  in 
order  to  fulfill  the  demands  of  this  divine  association, 
as  set  forth  in  the  commission.  And  as  Christian 
baptism  is  taught  and  commanded  in  the  commission 
or  not  at  all,  therefore  three  immersions  are  not 
necessary  to  Christian  baptism.     \_Time  expired. 


[MR.  QUINTER'S  SEVENTH  ADDRESS.] 

Friendly  Moderators — My  last  argument  was  based 
upon  the  immersions  recognized  by  Paul,  in  Hebrews, 
vi :  1,  2.  To  that  argument  m^^  friend  has  attempted  a 
reply.  And  I  confess  I  have  not  lately  heard  a  use 
of  Scripture  that  surprised  me  more  than  I  was  sur- 
prised at  the  disposition  he  made  of  that  text.  He 
rejects  the  idea  that  the  principles  mentioned  by  Paul 
as  "the  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ"  are 
principles  belonging  to  the  Christian  system  ;  or  at 
least,  he  insists  that  they  belong  more  especially  to 
the  Jewish  economy;  these  principles  of  the  doctrine 
of  Christ,  he  contends,  are  principles  of  the  Mosaic  law. 

Mr.  Anderson,  a  member  of  the  fraternity  to  which 
my  opponent  belongs,  translates  this  passage  thus : 


MR.    QUINTEK'S    seventh    ADDRESS.  lOo 

"  Tlieroforc,  omitilng  the  elementary  Cliristian  teach- 
inn;s!,  let  us  go  on  to  the  perfection  of  Christian  in- 
struction," etc.  Now,  it  appears  to  me  that  Christian 
teachings,  as  a  matter  of  course,  come  under  Chris- 
tianity. It  surely  must  mean  things  which  Christian 
teachers  taught.  Parkhurst,  a  profound  scholar  and 
lexicographer,  whose  Greek  and  English  lexicon  I 
hold  in  my  hand,  says,  in  reference  to  this  text,  "it 
also  includes  Christian  baptism."  Is  it  a  fact  that  the 
principles  here  mentioned  by  Paul  were  doctrines  of 
the  Mosaic  law  ?  Where  does  that  law  teach  the  res- 
urrection of  the  dead  ?  It  is  well  known  that  the 
Sadducees,  a  leadin^:  sect  amon«t  the  Jews,  denied  the 
resurrection.  It  was  a  very  difl&cult  matter,  it  will 
be  remembered,  for  the  Saviour  to  make  the  idea  of 
the  resurrection  clear  in  the  minds  of  the  apostles. 
Alas,  for  the  stupidity  of  a  people,  who,  with  the  doc- 
trine of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  constantly  be- 
fore them  as  one  of  the  principles  of  their  law,  were 
yet  so  extremely  ignorant  of  it !  And  "  repentance 
from  dead  works,"  my  friend  places  back  under  the 
law.  And  the  "  laying  on  of  hands,"  he  insists,  re- 
fers to  the  laying  of  hands  on  the  heads  of  the  animals 
brought  to  the  priests  for  sacrifice.  It  has  always 
seemed  to  me,  as  to  the  great  majority  of  commentators 
on  this  passage,  that  the  "laying  on  of  hands"  might 
and  ought,  much  more  naturally  and  correctly,  be  re- 
ferred to  the  laying  on  of  hands  by  the  apostles, 
mentioned  in  Acts,  viii :  17 :  "  Then  laid  they  their 
hjinds  on  them,  and  they  received  the  Holy  Ghost;" 
chap.,  xix:  6  :  "And  when  Paul  had  laid  his  hands 
upon  them,  the  Holy  Ghost  came  on  them  ;  and  they 
spake  with  tongues,  and  prophesied;"  and  several 
other  places  in  the  New  Testament.  And  the  doctrine 
"  of  eternal  judgment,"  too,  my  friend  would  make 
one  of  the  principles  of  the  Mosaic  law.  I  would  ask 
any  unprejudiced  reader,  is  that  the  idea  one  would 


104  DEBATE    ON    TRINE    IMMERSION. 

naturally  receive  upon  the  perusal  of  this  passage  ? 
Does  it  appear  to  have  been  the  idea  that  Felix  re- 
ceived, when  Paul  reasoned  before  him  of  "judgment 
to  come  ?"  It  evidently  had  its  desired  effect  in  stir- 
ring up  the  hard  heart  of  that  wicked  man.  It  is  difficult 
for  us  to  understand  that  Felix  could  have  been  thus 
moved  by  a  reference  to  the  principles  of  the  Jewish  law. 
I  repeat,  I  never  heard  such  a  disposition  made  of  this 
passage  before.  It  is  doubtful  in  my  mind  whether 
my  friend  can  find  any  commentator  of  any  authority 
that  places  these  things  all  back  under  the  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation. I  doubt  whether  many  ministers  can  be 
found,  even  in  his  own  fraternity,  to  indorse  this  dis- 
position of  them.  I  am  aware  that  Macknight  refers 
a  part  of  them  to  the  Jewish  economy,  but  not  the 
lohole;  and  were  we  to  refer  baptism  to  the  Mosaic 
dispensation,  and  not  the  other  principles  mentioned, 
then  we  would  have  the  principles  of  Christianity 
without  baptism;  and  that  my  friend  would  not  accept, 
unless  there  has  been  a  vast  chanoje  amono;  our  dis- 
ciple  brethren  from  what  Alexander  Campbell  and 
other  disciples  of  former  years  believed  and  taught. 
The  principles  of  Christianity  without  baptism  ?  No. 
It  will  not  do.  Baptism  can  not  be  taken  out,  and  the 
rest  remain  as  the  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ. 
My  friend  sees  that  this  would  never  do  ;  so  he  dis- 
poses at  once  of  the  whole  matter  by  putting  them  all 
away  under  the  former  dispensation.  I  can  not  accept 
of  this  disposition — not  until  much  more  light  has 
been  throvvn  upon  the  matter.  Consequently,  I  still 
insist,  we  have  immersions  alluded  to  by  Paul  as  con- 
tained in  Christian  baptism. 

My  friend,  in  the  conclusion  of  his  speech,  gave  us 
an  illustration  with  which  he  endeavored  to  support 
his  idea  that  one  action  only  is  necessary  to  introduce 
the  believer  into  the  three  names — the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the. Holy  Spirit.    He  imagines  an  association  with 


MR.  quintek's  skventii  audkkss.  105 

several  officers,  and  tells  us  it  is  not  necessary  to  sign 
our  names  several  times  in  order  to  become  members 
of  the  association.  That  is  true;  but  the  difficulty  is, 
the  cases  are  not  exactly  analogous.  The  case  of  a 
banking  association  would  be  a  more  correct  illustra- 
tion. On  our  bank  bills,  the  names  of  the  president 
and  cashier  must  both  be  inscribed  in  order  to  make 
the  bills  current.  So  with  this  association  of  believers, 
in  some  respects  :  the  names  of  each  of  these  divine 
characters  must  be  put  upon  us,  separately,  when  we 
are  brought  into  them.  That  this  is  the  more  appro- 
priate, I  will  show  by  a  reference  to  Revelations,  chap, 
xiv  :  verse  1  (reading  from  Mr.  Anderson's  transla- 
tion) :  "  And  I  saw,  and  behold  the  Lamb  stood  on 
Mount  Sion,  and  with  him  a  hundred  and  forty  and 
four  thousand,  that  had  his  name  and  his  Father's 
name  written  in  their  foreheads."  Here  are  two  of 
the  names,  set  forth  with  the  most  emphatic  distinct- 
ness, representing  two  of  the  characters  into  which  we 
are  baptized.  We  find  this  distinction  set  forth  and 
insisted  upon  in  the  Scripture,  in  places  innumerable — 
I  had  almost  said,  I  presume  I  could  talk  upon  this 
subject  with  my  friend  for  hours,  and  I  could  find 
matter  to  present  on  my  side  of  the  subject,  favoring 
a  distinction  in  the  three  divine  characters,  as  long  as 
he  could  on  his.  But  I  think  it  is  not  necessary  ;  I  fear 
it  would  only  weary  the  patience  of  the  audience  ; 
and  I  wish  to  dispose  of  this  subject  as  briefly  as  pos- 
sible and  do  it  justice. 

My  friend  read  a  long  grammatical  analysis  of  the 
commission.  I  hope  you  will  excuse  me  for  not  pay- 
ing much  attention  to  it.  The  fact  is,  I  did  not  under- 
stand it  very  well — and  I  do  not  think  the  audience 
did.  1  do  not  know  why  he  could  not  read  it  a  little 
more  intelligibly  to  us. 

But  since  he  seemed  pretty  well  pleased  with  ray 
authority,  I  will  read  again  from  the  same  authc 


106  DEBATE    ON    TRINE    IiMMERSION. 

Latham,  in  his  ''  Hand-book  of  the  English  Language," 
says  :  "  However  compendious  may  be  the  expres- 
sion, there  are  always  two  propositions  where  there  is 
one  conjunction."  [P.  357].  Now,  in  the  last  clause 
of  the  commission  there  are  two  conjunctions,  and 
consequently  there  must  be  three  propositions  in  all. 
Then,  to  express  the  commission  as  my  friend  would 
read  it — "  Baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  in  the  name  of  the  Son,  and  in  the  name  of  the 
Holy  Spirit" — would  not  satisfy  the  demands  of  the 
case.  ''In  the  name  of  the  Son"  is  not  a  proposi- 
tion— it  is  only  the  last  part  of  one.  So  with  "  in 
the  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  "  Baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Son,"  and  "baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,"  and  "  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Holy  Spirit" — there  are  the  three  propo- 
sitions which  belong  to  the  sentence  in  its  complete 
and  correct  grammatical  construction,  and  nothing 
less  will  do ;  for  "  there  are  always  two  propositions 
where  there  is  one  conjunction." 

My  friend  called  your  attention  to  the  expression 
of  Paul  (Ephesians,  iv :  5),  "One  Lord,  one  faith,  one 
baptism ;"  claiming  that  this  contradicted  the  idea  of 
trine  immersion.  But  when  this  passage  is  alluded  to  by 
writers  when  they  have  not  some  favorite  doctrine  to 
sustain,  it  is  never  claimed  to  refer  to  the  mode  of  im- 
mersion. I  have  noticed  a  number  of  articles  \Yritten 
by  our  disciple  brethren,  when  the  baptismal  contro- 
versy was  not  in  question,  and  they  made  no  reference  to 
the  mode.  Indeed,  they  take  the  very  ground  I  now 
take,  and  peremptorily  deny  that  the  apostle  had  any 
reference  whatever  to  the  mode  of  baptism.  In  a  recent 
number  of  the  Chrisiian  Standard^  is  an  able  article 
in  response  to  a  previous  article  by  another  corre- 
spondent, in  reference  to  the  very  text  cited  by  my 
friend,  an  extract  from  which  I  will  read.  (I  find  it 
quoted  in  the    Gospel   Visfor  for  September,  18G7.) 


MK.    QUINTKll's    SEVKNTH    ADDKKaS.  107 

The  writer  in  the  Sfandard  says: 

''It  [tlie  text,  Epli.,  iv  :  4,  6,]  has  been  used  as  an 
argument — 

"  I.     Against  sprinkling  and   pouring,  as  baptism. 

"  II.  Against  trine  immersion  (immersing  three 
times). 

"  III.    Against  Avater  baptism. 

*'No\v,  it  is  not  possible  that  the  apostle  has  given 
a  three-fold  argument  in  one  expression,  to  be  used 
by  different  chirsses  of  persons  at  pleasure,  in  order  to 
exclude  a  particular  doctrine  ;  we  must  hence  conclude 
that  some  of  the  applications  of  his  expression  are 
foreign  from  his  design.  To  determine  the  meaning 
and  correct  use  of  Paul's  words,  we  must  inquire  into 
his  design.  What  is  his  argument'^  We  may  some- 
times, properly,  apply  Paul's  words,  to  another  sub- 
ject, and  in  a  different  manner,  from  what  he  in- 
tended, but  in  that  case  it  would  not  be  PauVs  argu- 
ment. We  do  not,  then,  want  to  inquire  in  what  way 
the  words  may  be  applied,  but  how  does  Paul  apply 
them  ?     What  is  hU  argument  f 

"  I.  Was  he  arguing  against  sprinkling  and  pour- 
ing as  baptism? 

"  The  universal  response  must  be  negative.  The 
sprinkler  must  say  no,  or  abandon  sprinkling.  The 
immersionist  says  no  ;  for  sprinkling  and  pouring  were 
not  at  that  time  practiced  as  baptism.  *  * 

"  II.  Was  he  arguing  against  re-immersion,  or  trine 
immersion  ? 

"  As  in  the  former  case,  the  universal  response  is 
negative.  The  believers  in  trine  immersion  must  say 
no,  for  they  believe  it  taught  by  the  Saviour  and  the 
apostles,  and  Paul  would  not  oppose  them.  Those 
who  reject  trine  immersion  must  say  no,  for  they  do 
not  believe  it  taught  or  practiced  in  the  apostolic  age, 
and  Paul  would  not  be  opposing  a  nonentity.  It  is 
hardly  admissible  to  suppose  he  anticipated  an  error. 


108  DEBATE    ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

"  III.  Did  Paul  use  the  expression  ^  one  baptism ' 
in  opposition  to  '  water-baptism  ?' 

"  Again  the  response  is  negative.  For  in  that  case 
he  would  have  opposed  the  other  apostles  who  bap- 
tized in  Avater.  Nor  could  he  have  used  it  to  exclude 
the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  for  this  also  existed,  and  on 
two  special  occasions  had  thus  been  denominated. 

"  Without  further  arguing  the  question  negatively, 
I  will  state  a  more  general  negative  conclusion,  which 
will  enable  us  to  dispel  the  sophistry  that  has  so  long 
beclouded  the  subject,  viz  :  Paul  makes  no  allusion 
to  any  error  in  theory  or  "practice  on  the  subject  of  hap- 
tism  at  all.  Baptism  is  incidentally  brought  in  with 
six  other  items  as  an  argument,  and  the  word  '  one  ' 
connected  with  it  has  the  same  force  in  the  argument 
that  it  has  with  the  word  '  body,'  or  the  word  '  Lord.' 
The  'one  baptism'  can  no  more  be  quoted  with 
Paul's  sanction  to  disprove  an  error  in  baptism  than 
the  '  one  body '  or  the  '  one  Lord.' 

*'  What,  then,  is  Paul  opposing  ?  Division,  separation 
into  parties  or  sects.  He  exhorts  the  brethren  '  to  keep 
the  unity  of  the  Spirit  and  the  bond  of  peace.'  '  En- 
deavor,' try  hard,  strive  earnestly  to  keep,  preserve  or 
maintain  that  unity  or  oneness  which  God  '  purposed 
in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,  from  the  beginning  of  the 
■world.'  '  Bear  with  one  ayiother^^  continue  together  in 
peace,  harmony  and  love,  as  persons  who  are  taught 
by  the  same  Holy  Spirit. 

" '  But  we  have  trouble  ;  we  can  't  agree,  and  our 
feelings  will  be  continually  harassed  by  our  remaining 
together,  and  we  petition  thee,  0,  Paul,  for  a  separa- 
tion of  the  parties,  forming  two  churches,  the  Jewish 
converts  constituting  one,  and  the  Gentile  converts 
the  other.  We  beseech  thee,  0,  Paul,  to  grant  us  this, 
our  petition,  so  we  can  live  in  peace.' 

"  '  Dear  brethren,  your  petition  is  vain  ;  it  is  impos- 


MR.    QUrNTKR'S    SEVKNTII    ADDRESS.  109 

sible  for  me  to  grant  it.  It  is  contrary  to  the  revela- 
tion by  wliieli  God  has  made  known  to  me  the  mystery 
which  in  former  ages  was  not  made  known  to  tlie  sons 
of  men.  That  revehition  is  this  :  God  predetermined 
to  break  down  the  mi(hlle  wall  of  partition  between 
Jews  an<l  Gentiles,  and  reconcile  them  both  to  God  in 
one  body ;  make  them  both  one,  fellow-heirs,  members 
of  the  same  body  or  church.  I  can  not  consent, 
therefore,  to  a  division  of  the  church,  as  it  would  only 
be  rebuilding  the  middle  wall  of  partition  which  has 
been  torn  down.  *  *  *  jj^t  ^yi^y  .^^^\^  foi-  a 
separation  ?  Better,  by  far,  adjust  your  difficulties  on 
the  earth,  if  you  expect  to  sit  down  together  in  heaven. 
Are  you  not  all  striving  for  the  same  place?  You  all 
have  one  hope,  and  are  all  taught  by  one  Spirit  which 
animates  the  one  body.  It  is  unreasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  the  same  spirit  would  give  two  systems  of 
instruction  or  inhabit  two  bodies.  But  again,  there 
is  but  one  Jesus  Christ,  one  Saviour  who  is  constituted 
the  '  one  Lord.'  He  is  the  head  of  the  one  body, 
our  only  King,  Ruler  and  Lawgiver,  in  whom  we  all 
have  confidence,  and  hence  we  all  possess  one  and  the 
same  faith.  Not  only  so,  but  our  Lawgiver  has  given 
us  but  one  ordinance  of  baptism  to  which  we  all  must 
submit,  Jew  and  Gentile  alike,  for  there  is  no  differ- 
ence. The  same  baptism  that  Peter  enjoined  upon 
the  Jews  at  the  beginning,  and  also  enjoined  upon  the 
Gentiles  at  the  house  of  Cornelius.  There  is,  then, 
but  one  baptism  for  you  both.  Besides  all  this,  there 
is  but  one  God  who  is  the  ultimate  author  of  the  whole 
system  or  plan  of  salvation.' 

'*  Such  is  my  conception  of  PauVs  argument.  The 
only  legitimate  use  of  it  is  to  oppose  division;  either 
to  prevent  a  division  not  yet  consummated,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  Church  at  Ephesus,  or  to  effect  a  union 
after  a  division  is  once  made  in  violation  of  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Holy  Spirit." 


110  DEBATE    ON    TRINE    IMMERSION. 

Such  is  tlie  position  in  reference  to  this  text,  taken 
by  a  member  of  my  friend  McConnell's  own  church. 
And  it  must  be  evident  to  every  careful  reader  that 
the  word  "  baptisma"  is  used  in  the  text  in  reference 
to  the  ordinance,  and  not  to  the  mode  of  performing 
it.  The  fact  that  the  word  "baptisma"  represents  a 
three-fold  act,  does  not  militate  against  my  position. 
Supposing  trine  immersion  to  have  been  the  invariable 
mode  of  baptizing  previous  to  the  time  when  Paul 
w^rote  this  letter,  might  he  not  have  said  with  the 
utmost  propriety,  "  we  have  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one 
haptisma'^ — one  "immersion?"  Even  if  that  immer- 
sion had  been  made  up  of  three  actions  ?  three  "  im- 
mersions," if  you  please  ?  "  Three  immersions  in 
one  immersion !"  exclaims  my  friend,  "  why,  that  is 
nonsense  !"  It  may  sound  strange  at  first,  but  it  will 
not  after  we  have  familiarized  ourselves  with  the  ideas 
and  the  language  of  the  apostles  upon  this  subject. 

Among  the  unities  here  mentioned  (verse  4),  we 
are  told  by  the  apostle  that  there  is  "  one  Spirit ;"  but 
in  Revelations,  i;  4,  we  have  seven  Spirits.  This  we 
understand  to  be  the  one  Spirit  under  seven  different 
aspects  ;  because  seven  is  a  sacred  number,  as  three 
and  perhaps  some  other  numbers  are — expressive  of 
fullness,  completeness,  perfection.  The  Spirit  divides 
itself  into  gifts  and  graces,  so  as  to  adapt  itself  to  the 
wants  of  the  members  of  the  Christian  Church  every- 
where. Then  there  is  "one  body,"  which  means  "  one 
church."  In  Revelations,  i :  4,  already  referred  to, 
John  writes  to  the  seven  churches ;  how  many  other 
churches  there  were  we  do  not  know — perhaps  many 
more;  yet  all  these  constituted  the  07ie  church  of 
Christ.  You  can  comprehend  that  seven  spirits  are 
one  spirit ;  that  seven  churches  are  one  church  :  then 
why  is  it  deemed  so  strange  a  thought  that  there  may 
be  three  immersions  in  one  immersion  ?  that  three 
immersions — one  into  the  name   of  the  Father,  and 


MR.  quintek's  seventh  address.  Ill 

one  into  tlie  name  of  the  Son,  and  one  into  the  name 
of  tlie  Holy  Spirit — may  constitute  one  ordinance  of 
baptism  for  all,  for  Jew  and  Gentile,  for  circumcised 
and  uncircumcised,  for  penitent  sinners  everywhere 
and  at  any  time,  that  desire  to  avail  themselves  of  the 
saving  riches  of  Jesus  Christ?  Thus  we  look  at  this 
matter ;  thus  we  practically  apply  it ;  and  thus  we 
make  what  I  honestly  believe  to  be  a  fair  and  proper 
disposition  of  the  text  under  consideration. 

YII.  Mij  sevcnih  argument  in  heliaJf  of  trine  im- 
mersion is  founded  on  the  historic  fact  that  the  single 
immersion  was  introduced  some  considerable  time  after 
the  apostolic  age;  making  trine  immersion  the  older 
mode  of  immersion^  and  the  apostolic  mode. 

History  says  that  the  single  immersion  was  intro- 
duced by  Eunomius  in  the  fourth  century.  Theodoret 
says  :  "  He  [Eunomius]  subverted  the  law  of  holy  bap- 
tism, which  had  been  handed  down  from  the  beginning 
from  the  Lord  and  the  apostles,  asserting  that  it  is  not 
necessary  to  immerse  the  candidate  for  baptism  thrice, 
nor  to  mention  the  names  of  the  trinity,  but  to  im- 
merse once  only  into  the  death  of  Christ."  [Chrystal's 
History  of  the  Modes  of  Baptism,  p.  78.] 

Sozomen  has  the  following  in  reference  to  Eunomius  : 
*'  Some  say  that  this  Eunomius  was  the  first  who  dared 
to  bring  forward  the  notion  that  the  divine  baptism 
ought  to  be  administered  by  a  single  immersion,  and 
to  corrupt  the  tradition  which  has  been  handed  down 
from  the  apostles,  and  which  is  still  observed  by  all 
(or,  among  all)."     [Ibid,  p.  78.] 

Bingham  says:  "And  the  Eunomians,  who  first 
rejected  this  [trine  immersion],  are  condemned  by 
Theodoret  and  Sozomen,  as  making  a  new  law  of  bap- 
tizing, not  only  against  the  general  practice,  but  against 
the  general  rule  and  tradition  of  the  church.  An- 
tiquities of  the  Christian  Church,  Book  XI,  chap,  xi.] 


112  DEBATE    ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

History  tells  us  that  single  immersion  originated 
under  the  following  circumstances  :  As  the  Arians 
in  Spain  practiced  trine  immersion,  some  of  the  general 
church,  who  held  other  views  of  the  trinity  from  what 
the  Arians  did,  were  fearful  lest,  if  their  mode  of  bap- 
tism w^as  like  that  of  the  Arians,  it  would  be  inferred 
that  their  s^iews  of  the  trinit^^  were  also  like  those  of 
the  Arians.  They  therefore  wrote  to  Gregory  the 
Great,  at  Rome,  about  the  matter,  and  he  advised  that  if 
their  trine  immersion  might  lead  any  to  think  that  their 
views  of  the  trinity  were  like  those  of  the  Arians,  they 
should  change  their  mode  of  immersion,  and  adopt  the 
single  immersion,  in  order  to  be  different  from  the 
Arians.  This  was  the  weak  reason  given  for  a  change 
from  the  trine  to  the  single  immersion,  in  Spain.  And 
this  was  the  first  sanction  given  by  any  in  authority 
in  the  Catholic  Church  to  the  single  immersion.  The 
adoption  of  the  single  immersion  in  Spain  gave  much 
dissatisfaction  ;  and  the  fourth  council  of  Toledo,  about 
the  year  633,  was  called  upon  to  settle  the  difficulty 
which  had  arisen  in  the  church  from  baptism  being 
performed  by  the  single  and  by  trine  immersion.  This 
council  approved  of  Gregory's  advice,  and  was  the  first 
council  that  sanctioned  the  single  immersion.  Bingham 
says :  "  Some  learned  men  [meaning  Strabo  and 
Yossius]  find  fault  with  this  council  for  changing  this 
ancient  custom  upon  so  slight  a  reason  as  that  the 
Arians  used  it;  which,  if  it  were  any  reason,  would 
hold  as  well  against  the  single  immersion,  because  the 
Eunomians,  a  baser  sect  of  the  Arians,  were  the  first 
inventors  of  that  practice.  And  therefore  the  ex- 
ception made  by  this  Spanish  council  in  the  seventh 
century  can  not  prejudice  the  more  ancient  and 
general  practice  of  the  church,  which,  as  Strabo 
observed,  still  prevailed  after  this  council."'  [Anti- 
quities of  the  Christian  Church,  Book- XI,  chap,  xi.] 

Theodorct,  whose  testimony  I  have  read  above,  was 


MR.    QIJINTKU'S    fEVEXTlI    ADDRESS.  113 

a  writer  of  the  early  part  of  the  fifth  century,  liaving 
been  born  in  387.  Sozomen  also  belongs  early  in  the 
fifth  century.  Strabo  belongs  in  the  eiglith  century. 
The  date  when  the  Eunomians  introduced  single  im- 
mersion into  Spain  was  about  the  fourth  century. 

My  friend  has  endeavored  to  associate  trine  immer- 
sion with  sprinkling,  stating  that  they  arose  about  the 
same  time.  1  have,  upon  good  historical  authority, 
traced  trine  immersion  beyond  Tertullian ;  and  here  I 
have  found  the  origin  of  single  immersion,  very  nearly 
at  the  time  when  sprinkling  was  introduced.  We  will 
see  what  our  friend  can  do  toward  separating  them, 
as  they  seem  to  have  originated  about  the  same  time. 
We  deem  them  both  to  be  the  inventions  of  men,  equally 
unauthorized  by  the  command  of  Christ  or  the  example 
of  the  apostles. 

VIII.  My  eighth  argument  in  helialf  of  trine  immersion 
is  that  tvhen  the  single  immersion  zvas  introduced,  those 
who  used  it  baptized  their  candidates  into  the  death  of 
Christ,  or  into  the  name  of  Christ,  and  not  into  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  fiftieth  of  the  Apostolic  Canons  declares — but 
before  quoting  from  them  I  will  say,  the  origin  of  the 
Apostolic  Canons  is,  I  know,  an  unsettled  question. 
But  all  the  authorities  give  them  an  ancient  oriorin. 

They  consist  of  a  series  of  laws,  or  rules,  eighty-five 
in  number,  and  are  usually  attributed  (as  their  name 
imports)  to  the  apostles.  But  while  many  of  the  doc- 
trines contained  in  these  canons  are  in  perfect  harmony 
with  those  taught  by  the  apostles,  the  evidence  to  prove 
them  of  apostolic  origin  does  not  seem  to  be  satisfactory. 
They  were  probably  collected  by  Clement,  bishop  of 
Rome,  in  the  third  century.  This  is  the  conclusion  of 
some  learned  men  who  have  searched  profoundly  into 
their  date  and  origin.  They  describe  many  of  the  doc- 
trines and  rites  of  the  church  in  the  second  and  third 
8 


114  DEBATE    ON   TRINE  IMMERSION. 

centuries,  and  are  of  great  value  in  giving  us  a  knowl- 
edge of  these  at  that  early  period  of  the  church.  The  fif- 
tieth canon,  in  Whiston's  translation,  reads  as  folio ^Ys  : 

''If  any  bishop  or  presbyter  do  not  perform  three 
immersions  of  one  initiation,  but  one  immersion  which 
is  given  into  the  death  of  Christ,  let  him  be  deposed  : 
for  the  Lord  did  not  say,  '  Baptize  into  my  death  ;'  but, 
^Go  ye,  and  make  disciples  of  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Do  ye,  therefore,  0  bishops,  im- 
merse thrice — into  one  Father,  and  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  according  to  the  will  of  Christ  by  the  Spirit." 

Pelagius,  bishop  of  Rome,  in  the  sixth  century, 
says  :  "  There  are  many  who  say  that  they  baptize  in 
the  name  of  Christ  alone,  and  by  a  single  immersion. 
But  the  gospel  command,  which  was  given  by  God 
himself,  and  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  re- 
minds us  that  we  should  administer  holy  baptism  to 
every  one  in  the  name  of  the  trinity,  and  by  trine  im- 
mersion :  for  our  Lord  said  to  his  diciples, '  Go,  baptize 
all  nations  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  '^ 

Now,  as  there  was  a  change  in  the  number  of  im- 
mersions when  there  was  a  change  in  the  words 
used  in  administering  baptism,  and  as  the  single  im- 
mersion when  it  was  introduced  was  administered  into 
the  death  of  Christ,  and  not  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  this 
shows  that  it  was  thought  that  the  single  immersion 
would  not  correspond  Avith  the  formula  requiring  bap- 
tism to  be  administered  "  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

These  are  testimonies  gathered  from  history  ;  and 
I  know  not  how  my  friend  will  meet  them.  I  want  to 
have  them  disposed  of.  I  think  they  are  worthy  of 
consideration.  My  friend  may  try  to  make  you  think 
they  amount  to  little ;  but  you  see  the  prominency 


MR.  m"cONNKLL\s    SKVKNTH    ADDRESS.  115 

that  is  p;iveii  tlio  liistoric  argument  by  Prof.  Stuart, 
and  quote(i  by  Mr.  Campbell  as  expressive  of  his 
views  upon  that  point.  Prof.  Stuart  says,  you  will 
recollect,  that  if  there  remain  any  doubts  in  the  mind 
as  to  what  is  the  proper  mode  of  baptism,  whicli  can 
not  be  cleared  away  by  an  analysis  of  the  word,  or 
an  examination  of  the  circumstances  connected  with 
baptizing  as  recorded  in  Scripture,  a  study  of  history 
will  remove  every  doubt  from  the  mind.  I  have  pre- 
sented these  historical  facts  for  your  consideration; 
and  I  think  it  is  proper  and  just  that  my  opponent 
should  let  us  hear  from  history  its  testimony,  if  it  has 
any  testimony,  in  favor  of  single  immersion.  \_Time 
expired. 


[MR.  McCONNELL'S   SEVENTH    ADDRESS.] 

Gentlemen  Moderators — I  will  commence  where 
my  friend  closed,  and  notice  some  things  he  said. 
He  proposed  to  show  you  the  precise  time  when  single 
immersion  was  introduced,  and  then  brought  the 
Apostolic  Canons  as  proof.  In  the  same  breath  he 
said  the  Apostolic  Canons  were  of  doubtful  origin — 
their  authorship  was  an  unsettled  question.  Mosheim 
not  only  says  the  same,  but  goes  further  and  de- 
nounces them  as  a  forgery.  In  referring  to  the  wri- 
tings of  Clement,  bishop  of  Rome,  this  eminent  his- 
torian says :  "  The  Apostolic  Canons,  the  Apostolic 
Constitutions,  the  Recognitions  of  Clement,,  and  the 
Clementina,  were  fraudulently  ascribed  to  this  eminent 
Father  by  some  deceiver,  for  the  purpose  of  procuring 
them  greater  authority.  This  is  all  now  conceded." 
(Century  I,  Part  II,  chap,  ii,  sec.  19.)  Again  :  "This 
vicious  inclination  to  circumvent  and  confound  an  ad- 
versary rather  than  confute  him  with  sound  argument, 
produced  also  a  multiplicity  of  books  bearing  on  their 
fronts  the  names  of  certain  distinguished  men.    Hence 


116  DEBATE    ON    TRINE    IMMERSION. 

these  canons,  which  were  falsely  ascribed  to  the 
apostles."  (Century  III,  !Part  11,  chap,  iii,  sec.  11.) 
Well,  my  friend  brings  up  these  to  prove  the  origin 
of  single  immersion,  and  in  order  to  do  it,  reads  there- 
from this  singular  remark  :  "  Do  you,  0  bishops,  bap- 
tize thrice  f^''  It  is  not  the  first  time  a  man  has  gone 
searching  after  one  thing  and  found  another ;  but  I 
must  acknowledge  he  has  done  better  than  I  supposed 
he  could — much  better.  I  had  no  expectation  that 
he  could  find  a  positive  command  am/where  for  trine 
immersion.  However,  he  has  found  it,  at  last,  in  the 
Apostolic  Canons  ;  but  he  prefaced  it  with  the  remark 
that  these  were  spurious  !  ! 

He  introduced  some  other  authors,  with  whom  he 
endeavored  to  fill  up  that  ugly  gap  between  Tertullian 
and  the  commission,  endeavoring  to  prove  that  trine 
immersion  existed  in  the  first  century,  while  single 
immersion  was  an  invention  of  later  date.  But  whom 
did  he  quote  on  that  subject?  Why,  Theodoret,  in 
the  fifth  century,  and  Sozomen,  somewhat  later,  and 
perhaps  others  ;  but  all  far  this  side  of  Tertullian.  I 
will  not  deny  that  later  Avriters  may  have  made  asser- 
tions that  trine  immersion  existed  before  Tertullian  ; 
but  no  writer  who  lived  earlier  than  Tertullian  has 
mentioned  trine  immersion. 

This  forenoon,  in  his  concluding  speech,  my  friend 
insisted  that  he  had  proved  the  existence  of  trine  im- 
mersion in  the  first  century,  by  the  evidence  of  Vos- 
Bius.  "  Vossius,"  said  he,  "  traces  trine  immersion 
back  to  the  first  century ;  states  it  to  have  been  the 
practice  of  the  church  in  the  first  century."  And 
with  quite  an  air  of  triumph  he  called  you  ail  to  wit- 
ness  that  he  had  filled  up  the  gap  between  Tertullian 
and  the  apostles.  I  should  not  wonder  if  some  of  you. 
thought  he  had  done  it.  But  I  ask — Did  Vossius  live 
in  the  first  century  ?  No — not  till  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury.    Then  how  docs   he  trace  it  back?     Does  he 


MR.    m'CONNELL'S   seventh   ADDRESS  117 

cite  the  language  or  the  practice  of  any  man  who  lived 
at  that  time?  No,  indeed.  Then  we  have  only  his 
own  bare  assertion,  unsupported  by  a  single  word  or 
fact,  in  evidence.  I  would  as  soon  accept  my  friend's 
unsupported  assertion  in  evidence  as  that  of  Vossius. 
I  have  no  doubt  he  thinJcs  he  traces  trine  immersion 
back  to  the  apostolic  age,  or  that  he  does  so  satisfac- 
torily to  himself;  but  there  are  a  thousand  errors 
afloat  in  the  Christian  world,  which  their  adherents 
believe  can  be  traced  back  to  apostolic  times.  We 
want  something  more  conclusive  than  that,  in  this  in- 
vestigation. I  tell  my  friend  that  his  filling  is  of 
straw  ;  it  has  taken  fire  and  been  consumed,  or  has 
been  washed  away  by  single  immersion.  The  gap  is 
still  open. 

My  friend  eulogized  the  power  of  history  to  clear 
up  any  doubt  that  might  exist  in  regard  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture.  I  grant  that  we  may  appeal 
to  history  to  clear  up  many  doubts.  But  history  can 
not  settle  a  disputed  point  in  reference  to  a  practice 
which  obtained  at  a  time  to  which  the  history  of  the 
subject  does  not  reach.  The  history  of  the  fourth 
century  is  competent  to  prove  that  trine  immersion 
existed  in  the  fourth  century;  the  existence  of  trine 
immersion  in  the  first  century  must  be  proved  by  the 
history  of  the  first  century,  and  not  of  the  fourth,  or 
fifth,  or  sixteenth.  My  friend  has  no  history  of  trine 
immersion  in  the  first  century ;  or  if  he  has,  he  has 
not  produced  it  here. 

My  friend  quotes  against  me  from  a  writer  in  the 
Christian  Standard;  he  proposes  to  silence  me  by  it, 
because  that  writer  is  one  of  my  brethren.  I  know 
not  who  the  writer  is  from  whom  he  quotes  ;  he  may 
be  a  trine  immersionist,  for  aught  I  know.  I  am  not 
prepared  to  surrender  my  opinions  or  arguments  at  a 
quotation  from  a  stranger,  whose  very  name  I  do  not 
know.     Besides,  my  friend's  deductions  from  the  po- 


118  DEBATE    ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

sition  taken  in  the  article  read  by  him,  are  by  no 
raeans  legitimate.  He  says  hapiisma  is  unquestion- 
ably used  in  reference  to  the  ordinance,  and  not  to  the 
mode  of  performing  it.  But  the  difficulty  is,  Paul  did 
not  say,  '^  one  ordinance,'^  but  "  one  immersion."  The 
word  "ordinance"  is  not  in  the  text;  that  is  an  in- 
terpolation by  ray  friend. 

My  friend  appears  much  surprised  at  the  position  I 
took  in  ans^Yer  to  his  argument  in  favor  of  divers 
immersions,  in  the  sixth  of  Hebrews.  He  doubts 
whether  I  can  find  a  respectable  commentator  who 
refers  "  the  doctrine  of  baptisms"  back  to  the  Mosaic 
dispensation.  I  solemnly  aver  that  I  quoted  Mac- 
knight  correctly ;  and  I  ask  if  Macknight  is  not  a 
a  respectable  commentator  ?  Matthew  Henry  also  re- 
fers that  passage  to  the  former  dispensation ;  and  I 
ask  if  Matthew  Henry  is  not  a  respectable  commenta- 
tor ?  If  Matthew  Henry  and  Macknight  are  not 
respectable  commentators,  where  shall  we  find  re- 
spectable commentators  —  outside  of  trine  immersion- 
ists?  And  if  no  commentator  had  said  it,  it  would 
make  no  diiference  at  all  with  me.  But  my  op'ponent 
attempts  to  intimidate  my  brethren  here,  and  perhaps 
to  intimidate  me,  by  saying  that  none  of  my  brethren 
abroad  Avill  indorse  my  exposition  of  that  passage.  I 
will  acknowledge  that  I  have  not  been  to  consult 
Alexander  Campbell,  nor  any  of  my  brethren,  in  re- 
gard to  their  ideas  upon  the  subject.  I  went  to  the 
record  myself,  examined  the  passage  for  myself,  in  its 
proper  connection;  searched  the  epistle  itself  to  dis- 
cover the  purpose  of  the  apostle  in  writing  it;  found 
it  to  be  an  endeavor  of  Paul  to  dissuade  the  converted 
Jews  from  going  back  to  eTudaisin,  or  clinging  with 
undue  tenacity  to  the  Mosaic  ceremonies  ;  and  in  the 
miilst  of  his  argument  I  find  "the  doctrine  of  bap- 
tisms" set  down  as  one  of  the  things  that  he  exhorts 
them  to  "  leave,"  while  they  "  go  on  to  perfection." 


MR.    m'cONNELL's   seventh   ADDRESS.  119 

In  this  connection  my  friend  referred  to  Mr.  An- 
derson, and  rather  seemed  to  indorse  his  translation 
of  this  passage  —  'M)mitting,  therefore,  the  elemen- 
tary Cliristian  teachings,"  etc.  Now,  where  do  we 
find  '*  the  elementary  Christian  teachings  ?  "  I  answer, 
and  challenge  contratliction,  that  every  element  of  the 
Christian  doctrine  is  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 
Whether  it  be  immersions  or  the  imposition  of  hands, 
repentance  or  faith,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  or 
eternal  judgment,  search  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  the 
Psalms,  and  you  will  find  them  all  there,  more  or  less 
plainly  told  or  prefigured,  in  types  and  shadows,  in 
rites   and   ceremonies,  in  declarations  and  commands. 

But  my  friend  says,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead 
can  not  be  taught  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures — 
for  there  were  the  Sadducees,  they  had  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  yet  did  not  believe  in  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead.  Well,  in  this  day,  there  are  the  Quakers — I 
mean  no  reflection  upon  them,  for  they  are  among  the 
most  honest  and  excellent  people  on  the  face  of  the 
earth — but  the  Quakers  do  not  believe  in  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead;  and,  therefo-re,  according  to  my 
friend's  logic,  the  resurrection  af  the  dead  can  not  be 
a  Bible  doctrine.  But  we  believe  that,  notwithstand- 
ing the  Quakers,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  is  taught 
in  the  Bible ;  and  that,  notwithstanding  the  Sadducees, 
it  is  prefigured  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  So, 
we  claim  that  our  position  in  reference  to  the  "  prin- 
ciples of  Christ,"  mentioned  in  the  sixth  chapter  of 
Hebrews,  still  stands  intact;  and  that  the  ''doctrine 
of  immersions"  mentioned  by  Paul,  are  classed  with 
the  "divers  washings"  and  carnal  ordinances  else- 
where alluded  to  by  the  same  apostle. 

I  have  already  illustrated  baptism  by  the  case  of  a 
man  who,  by  a  single  oath  of  allegiance,  becomes  at 
once  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  of  the  State  of  Iowa, 
and  of  the  municipality  in  which  he  lives.     My  friend 


120  DEBATE   ON  TRINE  IMMERSION. 

says  the  cases  are  not  analogous.  I  ask,  why  not  ?  Con- 
siderable has  been  said  about  commentators  here,  and 
I  would  not  ignore  them;  for  they  are  useful,  when  a 
proper  use  is  made  of  them.     But  I  claim   that   the 
apostles  themselves  are  the  best  commentators  on  the 
commission.     And  the  apostle  I^aul  repeatedly  makes 
use  of  this  very  figure  or  comparison.    Ephesians  ii : 
19 :  '^  Now,  therefore,  ye  are  no  more   strangers  and 
foreAgners^  but  felloiv  citizens  ivith  the  saints^  and  of 
the  household  of  God."     Again,  Colossians,  i :  13, 14  : 
*' Giving  thanks  unto  the  Father,"  etc.,  "  who  hath 
translated  us  into  the  kingdom  of  his  dear  Son.''     This 
I  couple  with  our  Saviour's  assertion   (John,  iii :  5): 
*'  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he 
can  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  This  is  under- 
stood— at  least,  I  understand  it — to  have  reference  to 
baptism  ;  if  questioned  by  my  friend,  I  will  meet  him 
upon  that  point.     The  position  is,  that  by  being  born 
of  water  we  enter  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  by  baptism,  we 
are  translated  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and  become 
fellow  citizens  with  the  saints,  and  of  the  household  of 
God.     Now,  when   a  man  becomes  a   citizen  of  the 
United  States,  is  it  true  that  he  must  take  three  oaths 
of  allegiance — one  to  make  him  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  a  second  to  make  him  a  citizen  of  the  State, 
and  a  third  to  make  him  a  citizen  of  the  municipality 
in  which  he  resides  ?     The  municipality,   the  State, 
and  the  United  States,  are  associated  together  in  one 
grand  unity  ;  so  that  one  oath  of  allegiance  natural- 
izes a  man  into  all ;  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  are  associated  together  in  one  divine  unity,  so 
that  one  translation  into  the  king<lom  of  Jesus  Ciirist 
translates   the   believer   into   all.     It   does   not   need 
three  to  consummate  the  work. 

Again:  The  Holy  Scriptures  call  our  attention  to 
three  kingdoms — the  kingdom  of  nature,  the  kingdom 
of  grace,  and   the    kingdom    of  glory.     Now,  these 


MR.    m'CONNELl's   seventh    ADDRESS.  121 

kingdoms  must  each  be  entered  bj  a  birth  :  the  king- 
dom of  nature  "\ve  enter  by  a  birth  of  tlie  flesh  ;  the 
kingdom  of  grace,  by  a  birth  of  the  spirit;  the  king- 
dom of  glory,  by  the  resurrection  from  the  grave. 
Tlie  birth  of  the  spirit  is  symbolized  by  the  ordin;ince 
of  baptism,  nhich  also  is  a  type  of  the  resurrection  ; 
and  in  baptism  my  friend  contends  for  three  immer- 
sions— three  births.  Would  he  also  contend  that 
three  births  of  the  llesh  are  necessary  in  order  to  enter 
the  kingdom  of  nature  ?  and  three  resurrections  from 
the  dead,  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  glory?  yet  such 
must  be  the  case,  or  the  figure  which  our  Saviour  used 
when  he  said,  "Ye  must  be  born  again,"  of  water  and 
of  the  Spirit,  w^as  not  a  fitting  one  for  the  purpose  to 
which  he  applied  it. 

I  will  now  submit  another  argument  for  my  friend's 
consideration.  Paul,  in  his  letter  to  Titus,  iii :  5,  calls 
baptism  "  the  washing  of  regeneration."  Not  "  wash- 
ings," you  will  observe.  But  my  friend  may  insist 
that  in  this  one  washing  there  are  //iree  washings.  If 
so,  then  there  ought  to  be  three  regenerations  ;  other- 
wise, there  will  be  two  washings  without  any  regene- 
rations connected  with  them.  But  we  read  nowhere 
of  more  than  one  regeneration.  Now,  will  my  friend 
inform  us  which  of  the  three  washings  he  gives  his 
candidates  for  baptism,  is  "the  washing  of  regenera- 
tion?" and  also  what  kind  of  washings  the  other  two 
are?  and  what  purpose  they  serve?  Under  the  law, 
indeed,  there  were  (Heb.  ix  :  10)  "  divers  washings," 
and  other  "  carnal  ordinances,  imposed  until  the  time 
of  reformation  ;  but  Christ  being  come,  a  high  priest 
of  good  things  to  come,"  has  done  away  with  all  these 
things,  and  henceforth  we  live,  in  him  (Heb.  vii :  ID), 
"  not  after  the  law  of  a  carnal  commandment,  but  after 
the  power  of  an  endless  life."  Now,  does  my  friend 
desire  to  go  back  to  the  "  divers  washings"  of  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  and  subject  himself  to  the  fear- 


122  DEBATE  ON    TRINE  IMMERSION. 

ful  denunciations,  that  were  launched  by  the  apostle 
against  the  apostatizing  Hebrews  ? 

There  is  another  argument  which  seems  to  me  to  be 
applicable  to  this  question.  I  refer  you  to  Romans, 
vi :  17,  which  I  will  read,  according  to  Macknight's 
translation:  "God  be  thanked,  that  though  ye  were 
the  servants  of  sin,  ye  have  obeyed  from  the  heart 
that  {paredothete  tupon  didachas)  mould  of  doctrine 
into  which  ye  were  delivered."  The  original  word, 
tupos,  says  Macknight,  among  other  things,  signifies 
a  mould,  into  which  melted  metals  are  poured,  to  re- 
ceive the  form  of  the  pattern  after  which  the  mould 
has  been  made.  Now,  what  is  the  doctrine  ?  I  an- 
swer, the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  of  Christ. 
What  is  the  mould?  Baptism.  See  verses  three  and 
four  of  the  same  chapter:  "Are  ye  ignorant  that  so 
many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were  bap- 
tized into  his  death  ?  Besides,  we  have  been  buried  with 
him  by  baptism  into  his  death,  that  like  as  Christ  w^as 
raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father, 
even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life."  I 
have  given  you  Macknight's  translation  ;  his  comment 
upon  the  passage  is  as  follows  :  "  Ye  have  willingly 
obeyed  the  mould  of  doctrine  into  which  ye  were  cast 
at  your  baptism."  Now,  the  attentive  listener  can 
not  have  failed  to  observe  that  the  word  "  mould"  is 
in  the  singular  number;  there  is,  therefore,  but  one 
mould;  and  that  is,  immersion.  My  friend  contends 
for  three  moulds — three  immersions.  Now,  the  metal 
must  be  melted  before  it  can  be  cast  into  the  mould. 
Suppose,  then,  that  my  friend  takes  a  candidate  for 
baptism  to  the  water,  all  melted  down  with  contrition 
of  heart,  like  the  heated  metal,  and  casts  him  into  the 
mould — that  is,  immerses  him,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father.  He  raises  him  up,  and  takes  him  out  of  the 
mould ;  now,  must  he  not  cool  him  oif,  and  melt  him 
again,  before  he  can  cast  him  a  second  time?     And  if 


MR.  m'connell's  seventh  address.        123 

he  melts  liim  a  second  time,  of  wliat  use  was  his  first 
casting  ?  Certainly  none  at  all  ;  for  when  metal,  after 
having  once  been  cast  into  the  mould,  is  again  melted, 
it  assumes  the  same  form  it  had  when  first  melted; 
and  a  third  melting  has  the  same  effect.  There  is,  how- 
ever, this  result:  every  time  the  metal  is  melted,  it  is 
thereby  rendered  harder.  The  apostle's  language  in 
this  passage  is  evidently  borrowed  from  the  art  of  cast- 
ing metals  in  moulds  to  make  them  like  the  pattern 
from  which  the  moulds  are  made.  Now,  who  ever  heard 
of  a  moulder,  who  wished  to  make  an  article  like  a  pat- 
tern given,  making  three  moulds  ;  and,  pouring  his 
metal  into  one  of  these  moulds,  when  it  had  assumed 
the  form  he  desired,  taking  it  out,  melting  it  over 
again,  and  re-casting  it ;  and  when  it  had  again  hard- 
ened into  the  desired  shape,  melting  a  third  time,  and 
repeating  the  operation  yet  again  ?  Yet  the  practice  of 
my  Tonker  friends  is  parallel  with  this,  in  their  bap- 
tism by  trine  immersion. 

Again  :  In  I  Peter,  iii :  20,  21,  the  salvation  of 
Noah  and  his  family  by  the  flood  is  referred  to,  and 
we  are  informed  that  "  the  like  figure  whereunto,  even 
baptism,  doth  also  now  save  us."  Now,  in  this  type 
of  baptism  we  have  one  ark,  one  flood,  oqe  entering 
in,  one  salvation,  clearly  set  forth.  In  baptism,  as 
performed  in  the  manner  for  which  we  contend,  the 
analogy  is  complete  ;  we  have  one  church,  one  immer- 
sion, one  entering  in,  one  salvation.  To  conform  to 
the  idea  of  trine  immersion,  there  should  have  been 
three  arks,  three  floods,  three  enterings  in,  three  out- 
ridings  of  the  flood.  With  three  immersions,  there  is 
no  analogy  between  type  and  anti-type. 

Again :  In  Ramans,  vi :  3,  and  Colossians,  ii :  12, 
baptism  is  compared  to  a  burial ;  the  believer  is  rep- 
resented as  being  "  buried  with  Christ  in  baptisui." 
But  whom  dowe  bury  ?  I  answer,  those  who  are 
dead.     And  when  raised  from  the  water,  the  believer 


124  DEBATE    ON    TRINE    IMMERSION. 

is  represented  as  being  made  alive  with  Christ,  "  in  the 
likeness  of  his  resurrection."  Now,  baptism  symbol- 
izing death,  burial,  and  resurrection — what  idea  is  con- 
veyed by  my  friend's  |)ractice  of  trine  immersion  ? 
He  immerses — buries — his  candidate  once.  He  raises 
him  up — but  does  the  subject  come  up  a  living  man? 
or  is  he  still  dead?  Is  the  raising  of  dead  men  such 
a  resurrection  as  the  Scriptures  promise?  According 
to  the  apostle,  the  believer,  after  immersion,  is  not 
raised,  being  yet  dead,  but,  being  risen  with  Christ, 
is  "  raised  from  the  dead" — "  that  like  as  Christ  was 
raised  from  the  dead,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in 
newness  of  life."  Now,  if  you  immerse  him  again, 
you  must  either  kill  him,  or  bury  him  alive — either  of 
which  would  be  most  cruel.  And  so,  also,  with  the 
third  immersion.  But  the  apostle  contradicts  all  this  ; 
for  he  says  (Romans,  vi :  10),  after  showing  that  we 
are  buried  in  baptism  in  the  likeness  of  Christ's  death, 
and  raised  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection,  "  For  in 
that  he  died,  he  died  unto  sin  once;"  and  "in  that  he 
liveth,  he  liveth  unto  God."     \_Time  expired. 


[MB.  QUINTER'S  EIGHTH  ADDRESS] 

Friendly  Moderators — In  resuming  my  argu- 
ment, I  will  first  remark  that  it  seems  there  was  quite 
a  misapprehension,  on  the  part  of  my  friend,  in  ref- 
erence to  what  I  said  in  my  last  speech  concerning 
the  Apostolic  Canons,  and  the  purpose  for  which  I 
made  the  quotations  from  them  that  I  did.  I  did  not  rely 
upon  them  at  all  to  prove  the  origin  of  single  immer- 
sion. Upon  that  point  I  quoted  Theodoret,  and 
Sozomen,  and  others,  showing  that  the  single  immer- 
sion originated  with  the  Eunomians.  I  then  left  that 
branch  of  the  subject,  and  proceeded  with  another 
argument,  to  show  that  when  the  single  immersion  was 


MR.    QUINTEK's    KIGIITII    ADDRESS.  125 

introduced,  those  who  used  it  changed  not  only  the 
inetliod  but  the  hmguage  used — baptizing  into  the 
death  of  Christ,  instead  of  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  tlie  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  here  I 
introduced  the  Apostolic  Canons ;  and  I  still  contend 
they  were  proper  evidence  to  introduce  ;  for,  however 
spurious  they  may  be,  however  doubtful  their  origin, 
they  are  certainly  competent  to  prove  that,  whenever 
and  by  whomsoever  written,  the  practice  of  baptizing 
into  the  death  of  Christ  did  then  exist,  or  it  could  not 
have  been  referred  to  in  any  way.  And  also  that  the 
change  in  the  mode  of  baptism  was  accompanied  by  a 
change  in  the  words  used  in  connection  with  the  ordi- 
nance— thus  indicatinor  that  the  sinsjle  immersion  was 
not  deemed  compatible  with  the  language  of  the  bap- 
tismal formula  given  by  our  Saviour.  But  my  friend 
appears  to  have  misunderstood  me,  and  I  have  not 
heard  any  direct  reply  at  all  to  that  argument. 

Then  there  was  one  point  upon  which  it  seems  I 
misunderstood  him,  and  I  ask  his  pardon  if  I  misrepre- 
sented him.  That  was,  in  reference  to  Macknight  and 
others  Nvho,  he  asserts,  consider  "  the  principles  of 
Christ"  spoken  of  in  the  sixth  of  Hebrews,  to  belong 
under  the  old  dispensation.  I  knew  that  some  com- 
mentators placed  a  part  of  the  doctrines  mentioned  in 
the  list  back  under  the  Mosaic  economy,  but  was  not 
aware  that  any  commentator  placed  them  all  there.  I 
can  only  say,  then,  so  far  as  Macknight  and  the  others 
he  mentions  are  concerned,  I  was  mistaken  in  relation 
to  their  view  of  the  passage  ;  I  accept  my  friend's 
statement  of  their  position,  but  I  reject  the  idea, 
nevertheless. 

In  reference  to  Anderson's  translation  of  this  pas- 
sage, "  Omitting,  therefore,  the  elementary  Christian 
teachings,"  etc.,  I  can  not  accept  my  friend's  interpre- 
tation.    I  still  claim  that  the  idea  of  Christian  teach- 


126  DEBATE    ON   TRINE    IMMERSION. 

ings  refers  to  the  teachings  of  Christianity  in  the  age 
in  which  the  apostle  wrote. 

In  regard  to  filling  up  that  gap,  that  my  friend  is  so 
troubled  about :  We  have  not,  it  is  true,  the  direct 
testimony  of  men  living  between  Tertullian  and  the 
apostles  as  to  the  mode  of  immersion  then  practiced. 
But  the  historians  seem  to  have  had  access  to  authori- 
ties which  we  have  not,  at  our  distance  of  time  from 
that  age ;  and  they  assert  trine  immersion  to  have 
been  the  prevailing  mode.  Mosheim  says,  immersion 
was  the  practice  in  the  first  century,  and  for  authority 
refers  us  to  Vossius;  we  go  to  Vossius,  to  see  what  he 
has  to  say  about  it,  and  he  says  that  trine  immersion 
was  the  common  practice  in  all  countries.  Mosheim 
says  nothing  as  to  whether  it  was  one  or  three  im- 
mersions that  was  practiced  in  the  first  century  ;  but 
he  sends  us  to  his  authority  for  stating  that  immer- 
sion prevailed,  and  we  find  that  this  autliority  states 
it  was  trine  immersion.  That  I  call  tracing  ti-ine  im- 
mersion back  to  the  first  century,  and  still  claim  that 
the  gap  is  filled. 

My  friend  again  brings  up  his  illustration  of  an  in- 
dividual being  naturalized  into  the  United  States,  into 
the  State  of  Iowa,  and  into  the  municipality  in  which 
he  resides,  by  one  action.  I  will  not  deny  the  fact, 
but  will  deny  that  the  cases  are  analogous.  The  com- 
parison is  not  well  founded.  Why  is  it,  I  ask,  that  a 
man  can  become  a  citizen  in  this  three-fold  capacity 
by  a  single  act?  I  answer,  for  the  simple  reason  that 
the  laivs  of  the  country  make  it  so.  Now,  the  laws  of 
the  divine  economy  are  not  in  all  respects  conformable 
to  the  laws  of  earthly  nations.  The  laws  of  the  king- 
dom of  Heaven,  as  set  forth  in  the  formula  for  adminis- 
tering Christian  baptism,  which  is  the  initiatory  act  re- 
quisite for  admission  into  that  kingdom,  requires  an  im- 
mersion into  the  name  of  the  Father,  an  immersion  into 
the  name  of  the  Son,  and  an  immersion  into  the  name 


MR.    QUINTER's    KIGHTII    ADDRESS.  127 

of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  not  for  us  to  decide  tliat  we 
shall  become  citizens  of  the  heavenly  kingdom  only  on 
the  same  terms  by  which  foreigners  are  naturalized 
and  become  subjects  of  an  earthly  corporation  or 
municipality.  We  can  only  become  citizens  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  by  obedience  to  the  laws  and  regu- 
lations pertaining  to  that  kingdom. 

As  regards  the  comparisons,  upon  which  my  friend 
spent  considerable  time,  of  baptism  to  a  birth,  burying, 
moulding,  etc. — in  reply  to  all  this  mass  of  matter,  I 
simply  reply  that  trine  immersion  is  essential  to  bap- 
tism. It  is  essential,  not  because  it  coincides,  or  fails 
to  coincide,  with  certain  figures  that  have  been  used  by 
the  inspired  writers  to  illustrate  its  purpose  and  effects, 
but  because  it  has  been  commanded.  But  there  is  no 
discrepancy  between  baptism  by  trine  immersion  and 
the  types  under  which  it  is  prefigured ;  for  we  claim 
but  one  baptism — one  ordinance — one  immersion  if 
you  will.  The  fact  that  it  takes  three  acts  to  con- 
stitute this  ordinance,  does  not  interfere  with  its  com- 
plete correspondence  with  the  types  and  figures  used 
to  illustrate  it. 

We  are  pointed  to  the  ark  as  a  type  of  baptism  ;  and 
my  friend  asserts  that  Noah  went  into  the  ark  but 
once— ^consequently  a  believer  must  be  immersed  but 
once.  I  ask  my  friend  where  he  learns  that  Noah 
went  into  the  ark  but  once  ?  How  does  he  know  how 
many  times  Noah  went  in,  while  the  ark  was  building, 
and  after  it  was  completed,  with  the  cattle  and  animals 
that  were  saved  with  him,  and  the  provision  that  served 
for  their  support  while  in  the  ark  ?  I  want  to  come 
down  to  the  point  in  which  the  very  gist  of  his  argu- 
ment is — if  there  is  any  gist  about  it. 

There  is  an  idea  right  here  that  I  wish  you  to  under- 
stand, in  order  to  relieve  your  minds  in  regard  to  this 
matter  of  the  inconsistency  of  figures.  I  presume 
you  are  all  aware  that  in  the  use  of  figurative  language, 


128  DEBATE    ON   TRINE    BLMERSION. 

there  are  always  one  or  two  paramount  ideas  that  are 
intended  to  be  set  forth,  and  the  comparison  can  not 
justly  be  carried  beyond  that.  To  endeavor  to  carry 
the  resemblance  between  type  and  anti-type  into  every 
minute  particular,  is  unwarrantable  and  improper ;  it 
tends  to  befog  and  perplex  rather  than  to  elucidate 
'and  explain;  writers  sometimes  call  this  "making  a 
parable  go  on  all-fours.'*  In  the  case  of  every  type 
used  in  Scripture,  there  are  many  points  of  difterence 
between  it  and  its  anti-type,  many  particulars  from 
which  it  would  be  very  unfair  and  unsafe  to  deduce 
any  lesson  of  doctrine.  As  an  illustration  upon  this 
point,  the  paschal  lamb  is  universally  accepted  as 
a  type  of  Christ.  See  I  Corinthians,  v :  7 :  "  For 
even  Christ  our  passover  is  sacrificed  for  us."  Yet 
see  how  many  points  of  difference  there  were  between 
them.  What  a  disparity  between  the  young  animal, 
and  our  Saviour,  whose  body  was  a  perfect  specimen  of 
the  human  form,  and  who  was  the  perfect  Son  of  God  ! 
The  paschal  lamb  was  to  be  about  a  year  old;  but 
Christ  was  thirty-four  years  old  when  he  was  sacrificed. 
The  paschal  lamb  was  to  be  roasted  and  eaten  ;  but  the 
body  of  Christ  Avas  neither  roasted  nor  eaten.  Yet, 
notwithstanding  these  and  numerous  other  points  of 
diff'erence,  there  were  certain  leading  features  of  re- 
semblance which  rendered  the  paschal  lamb  a  fitting 
type  of  him  who  was  slain  for  our  sins.  So  in  reference 
to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  the  regeneration  of 
which  it  is  typical.  The  analogy  consists  in  the  general 
idea  of  being  buried  in  the  water,  and  coming  forth 
out  of  the  water  of  baptism  to  commence  a  new  life  ;  and 
not  in  any  particular  number  of  actions  performed  in 
the  water.  The  analogy  between  a  birth,  and  baptism 
by  trine  immersion,  when  such  baptism  is  followed  by 
a  new  life,  is  sufficiently  plain  to  jiistity  a  comparison 
of  baptism  to  a  birth,  as  is  so  frequently  done  b}'  our 
Baviour  and  the  apostles.     And  if  1  were  to  follow  the 


MR.    QUINTER's   EIGUTH   ADDRESS.  129 

example  of  my  friend  in  this  respect,  and  endeavor  to 
detenuine  the  mode  of  baptism  by  a  reference  to  the 
types  or  processes  to  which  it  is  compared,  I  presume 
that  I  couUlfind  as  many  to  indicate  a  plurality  of  im- 
mersions as  he  could  to  suf]:.^est  single  immersion.  My 
friend  has  referred  us  to  Paul's  letter  to  Titus  (iii:  5), 
■v^•here  baptism  is  called  "  the  washing  of  regeneration." 
You  were  particularly  requested  to  note  that  the  ex- 
pression is  not  "  washings."  But  what  is  the  common 
mode  of  *'  washing  ?"  Is  an  article  usually  "  washed  " 
by  thrusting  it  into  the  water  once,  and  no  more?  You 
all  know  that  by  far  the  more  common  way  is  by  put- 
ting it  into  the  water  repeatedly.  If  this  figure, 
introduced  here  by  my  friend,  teaches  anything  as  to 
the  mode  of  baptism,  it  teaches  repeated  immersion. 
But,  as  I  before  remarked,  our  deductions  from  these 
types  and  figures  are  not  to  be  carried  to  an  extreme 
and  unwarrantable  extent.  If  we  had  more  time  upon 
this  subject  I  would  be  pleased  to  develop  this  point 
more  extensively  ;  but  I  can  not  spend  all  my  time  in 
reviewing  my  friend's  positions,  as  I  have  several 
arguments  in  support  of  own  side  of  the  proposition 
which  I  Avish  to  bring  before  you. 

IX.  Mij  ninth  argument  ivill  he  based  upon  the  testi- 
mony of  reformers,  eminent  theologians,  and  reputable 
authors. 

I  will  refer  you  first  of  all  to  Luther,  known  to  you 
all  as  a  learned  and  popular  man.  In  the  year  1530, 
Luther  was  written  to  by  Henricus  Genesius,  preacher 
at  Schtershausen,in  reference  to  baptizing  a  converted 
Jewess.  Luther  replied,  and  in  his  letter  he  says  : 
**  As  to  the  public  act  of  baptism,  let  her  be  dressed  in 
the  garments  usualhMvorn  by  females  in  baths,  and  be 
placed  in  a  bathing  tub,  up  to  the  neck  in  water;  then 
let  the  baptist  dip  her  head*  three  times  in  the  water, 
with  the  usual  words:  'I  baptize  you  in  the  name  of 
9 


130  DEBATE    ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

tlie  Father,'  "  etc.  [Luther's  works,  ed.  Walch,  Part  X, 
p.  2637.  Translated  by  C.  L.  Loos,  for  the  Disciple.'] 

I  will  next  refer  you  to  John  Wesley.  Mr.  We>sley 
committed  his  papers  to  certain  trustees,  one  of  whom 
was  a  Mr.  Moore,  who  afterward  wrote  a  biography 
of  him.  Ill  that  biography,  speaking  of  Mr.  Wesley's 
views  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  Mr.  Moore  says  : 
*'  When  Mr.  Wesley  baptized  adults,  professing  faith 
in  Christ,  he  chose  to  do  it  by  trine  immersion  if  the 
person  would  submit  to  it,  judging  this  to  be  the  apos- 
tolic method  of  baptizing."  [Moore's  Life  of  Wesley, 
YoL  I,  p.  425.] 

K-ev.  Robt.  Adams,  an  eminent  writer,  in  his  "  Reli- 
gious World  Displayed,"  in  an  article  on  the  Greek 
Church,  says  :  *'  They  baptized  by  immersion  ;  and  they 
used  the  trine  immersion,  or  form  of  dipping  the  child 
thrice  in  water  ;  which  is  no  doubt  the  most  ancient 
manner."  (Vol.  I,  p.  303.)  Notice  that  this  learned 
author  declared  it  as  his  own  opinion,  that  there  is  7io 
doubt  hut  ivhat  trine  immersion  is  the  most  ancient 
manner  of  performing  baptism. 

Chambers'  Cyclopedia,  or  Dictionary  of  the  Arts  and 
Sciences,  a  large  and  carefully  compiled  work,  has  the 
following  definition  and  explanation  on  the  subject  of 
baptism — which  may  be  found  in  the  original  work,  or 
as  quoted  by  Mr.  Campbell  in  his  debate  with  Mr. 
Rice  (Page  174):  ''Baptism,  in  Theology;  formed 
from  the  Greek  baptizo  of  bap>tOy  I  dip  or  plunge ;  a 
rite  or  ceremony  by  which  persons  were  initiated  into 
the  profession  of  the  Christian  religion.  The  practice 
of  the  Western  Church  is,  to  sprinkle  the  water  on  the 
head  or  face  of  the  person  to  be  baptized,  except  in 
the  Church  of  Milan,  in  whose  ritual  it  is  ordered  that 
the  head  of  the  infant  be  plunged  three  times  into  the 
water,  the  minister  at  the  same  time  pronouncing  tlie 
words,  '*I  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost " — importing  that  by  this 


MR.    QUINTEr'S  eighth    ADDRESS.  131 

ceremony  the  person  baptized  is  received  among  the 
professors  of  that  religion,  which  God,  the  Father  of 
all,  revealed  to  mankind  by  the  ministry  of  his  Son, 
and  confirmed  by  the  miracles  of  his  Spirit.  "^  triple 
immersion  was  first  used,  and  contuiued  for  a  long 
time." 

There  is  a  ^vork  called  the  "  Pantalogia,"  a  kind  of 
Comprehensive  Dictionary,  biblical  and  classical.  Dr. 
Pengilly,  in  the  "  Scripture  Guide  to  Baptism,"  page 
73,  makes  the  following  quotation  from  an  article  on  the 
Greek  Church,  in  the  Pantalogia  :  "  Greek  Church — 
that  part  of  the  Christian  Church  which  was  first 
established  in  Greece,  and  is  now  spread  over  a  larger 
extent  of  country  than  any  other  established  church. 
It  comprehends  in  its  bosom  a  considerable  part 
of  Greece,  the  Grecian  Isles,  Wallachia,  Moldavia, 
Egypt,  Abyssinia,  Nubia,  Lybia,  Arabia,  Mesopota- 
mia, Syria,  Cilicia,  Palestine.  It  may  be  observed 
that  amid  all  their  trifling  rites,  they  practice  trine  im- 
mersion^ zvhich  is  unquestionably  the  primitive  manner.'^ 

I  could  read  other  authorities,  the  testimonies  of 
learned  and  eminent  men,  to  an  almost  unlimited  ex- 
tent, upon  this  point,  but  time  forbids.  You  can  not 
fail  to  have  noticed  that  these  men  express  themselves 
in  reference  to  the  fact  of  trine  immersion  being  the 
primitive  mode,  without  the  least  hesitation  or  doubt. 
''  Unquestionably,"  they  say  ;  or  express  themselves 
with  a  positiveness  which  indicates  that  there  is  not 
the  least  question  in  their  minds  as  to  the  fact.  And 
further,  the  witnesses  I  have  introduced  under  this 
argument  are  worthy  of  especial  attention,  as  they  are 
impartial  witnesses  ;  they  did  not  practice  trine  immer- 
sion ;  on  the  contrary,  they  did  not  practice  immersion 
at  all,  neither  was  it  the  practice  of  the  denomination 
to  which  they  belonged.  I  told  you,  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the.  discussion,  that  I  intended  to  pursue  the 
course    generally  pursued  in    controversies   between 


132  DEBATE    ON   TKINE   IMMERSION. 

immersionists  and  pedobaptists.  As  immersionistg, 
3^011  all  claim  in  the  discussion  of  this  question  that 
such  arguments  as  I  have  adduced  tell  strongly  in 
your  favor.  And  if  this  class  of  arguments  is  worth 
anything  when  used  in  support  of  immersion,  I  claim 
that  they  are  worth  just  as  rnuchw^hen  used  to  sustain 
trine  immersion. 

I  have  already  spoken  incidentally  of  the  practice 
of  the  Greek  Church.  I  wish  to  refer  to  that  now  a 
little  more  fully. 

X.  My  tenth  argument,  therefore,  will  he  drawn  from 

the  practice  of  the  Greek  Church. 

The  Greek  Church  is  both  ancient  and  numerous, 
reaching  far  back  into  Christian  antiquity.  In  the 
territory  she  extends  over  is  to  be  found  nearly  one- 
third  of  Christendom — one  hundred  millions  of  pro- 
fessing Christians.  In  controversies  between  immer- 
sionists and  pedobaptists,  the  argument  drawn  from 
the  practice  of  the  Greek  Church  is  always  regarded 
as  of  great  importance.  It  is  claimed  by  immersionists 
as  a  strong  argument  in  favor  of  immersion  ;  we  claim 
it  to  be  equally  strong  in  favor  of  trine  immersion,  since, 
according  to  Sir  P.  Ricaut,  "  Thrice  dipping  or  plung- 
ing, this  church  holds  to  be  as  necessary  to  iXiQform 
of  baptism  as  water  to  t\\Qmatter.^^ 

Alexander  Campbell,  in  his  work  on  baptism,  uses 
the  following  language,  in  a  sort  of  catechism  which  he 
has  constructed,  in  order  to  place  the  argument  for 
immersion  more  pointedly  before  his  readers  : 

"  Q.  IOC).  How  shall  an  illiterate  man  know  the 
meaning  of  the  Greek  word  hajjfi^nia  ? — A.  By  inquir- 
ing how  the  Greek  Church  practice  this  rite;  it  is 
certain  they  ought  to  understand  their  own  language 
best. 

'•  Q.  107.  And  how  does  the  Greek  Church  adminis- 
ter this  ordinance? — A.   Even    to  this  day  they  im- 


MR.    QUINTEr's    eighth    ADDRESS.  133 

mersc  every  subject,  in  all  climates,  and  in  all  countries 
in  which  tiiey  may  be  placed." 

Now,  all  the  argument  in  these  catechetical  ques- 
tions that  bears  in  favor  of  immersion,  bears  equally 
strong  in  favor  of  trine  immersion,  as  that  is  the  kind 
of  immersion  practiced  by  them. 

Mr.  Campbell  says  farther  upon  this  point:  "The 
facts  then  are,  the  whole  world  immersed,  with  these  few 
exceptions,  for  thirteen  centuries.  The  east  half  of 
Christendom  still  continues  the  practice.  The  Greek 
portion  of  the  church  never  to  this  day  has  given  up 
the  primitive  practice.  This,  too,  is  an  argument  of 
more  weight  than  even  the  numerical  magnitude  of 
this  immense  section  of  the  church  ;  it  is  not  merely 
the  voice  of  many  millions,  but  the  voice  of  many  mill- 
ions of  Greeks;  of  men  who  knew  what  the  apostles 
and  Greek  Fathers  had  written  ;  who  needed  no  trans- 
lators, nor  scholiasts,  nor  annotators,  nor  historians, 
to  read  them  lessons  on  the  primitive  practice,  or  on  the 
meaning  of  Christ's  commission.  Some  seventj^-five 
or  one  hundred  million  such  vouchers  on  a  mere  ques- 
tion of  fact,  qualified  as  they  were,  on  the  mere  prin- 
ciple of  human  authority  would  outweigh  the  world." 

This  is  strong  language  ;  but  he  who  uttered  it,  knew 
whereof  he  affirmed.  He  knew  the  force  of  language, 
and  the  grounds  he  had  for  making  these  declarations. 
He  felt  justifie<l  in  using  it,  when  vindicating  immer- 
sion, that  was  dear  to  his  heart;  and  I  feel  justified  in 
quoting  it  in  vindicating  a  mode  of  immersion  that  is 
dear  to  my  heart,  because  I  conceive  it  to  be  taught 
by  the  authorities  of  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  of 
which  we  are.  anxious  to  become  citizens,  in  order  that 
■we  may  enjoy  the  immunities  thereof.  And  while  my 
friend  by  my  side  has  been  vindicationg  what  he  be- 
lieves, earnestly,  zealously  and  ably,  we  yet  submit 
that  he  has  so  far  failed  to  prove  that  trine  immersion 
is  not  the  ancient  and  apostolic  mode  of  baptism. 


134:  DEBATE    ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

My  friend  has  half  an  hour  in  which  to  reply  to  the 
arguments  I  have  now  advanced,  after  which  each  of 
us  is  to  have  but  one  more  speech.  Those  being  our 
concluding  speeches,  it  is  understood  that  in  them  no 
new  matter  will  be  presented.  I  shall  occupy  my  time 
with  a  brief  and  rapid  review  of  the  arguments  I  have 
presented  during  the  past  two  days. 

[The  speaker  commenced  his  review  of  the  argu- 
ments he  had  advanced,  but  being  interrupted  in  his 
remarks  at  the  end  of  three  or  four  minutes  by  the 
announcement  that  his  time  had  expired,  the  reporter 
takes  the  liberty  to  omit  them  here,  and  insert  them 
in  the  next  speech,  with  which  they  are  more  properly 
and  intimately  connected.] 


[MR  McCONNELL'S  EIGHTH  ADDRESS.] 

Gentlemen  Moderators — My  friend  places  great 
stress  upon  the  argument  drawn  from  the  practice  of 
the  Greek  Church.  We  are  told  that  church  has 
always  practiced  trine  immersion.  But  how  far  back 
does  that  extend?  I  suppose  trine  immersion  could 
not  have  been  practiced  by  the  Greek  Church  before 
the  Greek  Church  had  any  existence.  I  have  not 
made  a  critical  examination  into  this  matter,  but  if  I 
recollect  rightly,  the  division  of  the  church  resulted 
from  a  dispute,  as  to  whether  Rome  or  Constantinople 
should  be  the  seat  of  supreme  power  in  the  church — 
and  this  dispute  culminated  late  in  the  ninth  cen- 
tury. Before  that  there  was  no  Greek  Church,  nor 
Roman  Church;  no  Eastern  Church  nor  Western 
Church — it  was  all  one  church.  But  long  before  the 
separation  into  Eastern  and  Western,  the  church  had 
grievously  apostatized  from  the  simplicity  of  the 
Gospel,    and    manifold    corruptions    had    crept    iu. 


MH.  m'connell's  eightu  address.  135 

Though  the  Greek  Church  had  practiced  trine  im- 
iner.'^iun  from  the  very  first  hour  of  its  existence,  it 
woiihl  be  no  proof  of  the  correctness  of  that  practice. 

But  we  are  tohl  that  the  language  of  the  com- 
mission must  be  decided  by  the  construction  phiced 
upon  it  by  the  Greeks.  I  contend,  liowever,  that  we 
are  as  well  able  to  determine  the  meaning  of  the  com- 
mission as  are  the  Greeks  themselves.  Scholars  of 
the  present  age  understand  the  laws  of  the  construction 
of  the  lanoruaore  as  well  as  the  Greeks  understand  it. 
Besides,  it  is  pretty  well  understood  by  learned  men 
that  the  commission  was  written  in  Hebrew,  and  not 
in  Greek.  Matthew  is  said  to  have  written  his  gospel 
in  Hebrew. 

My  friend  insists  that  he  has  filled  up  the  gap  be- 
tween TertuUian  and  the  commission,  because  Mos- 
heim,  when  speaking  of  baptism  in  the  first  century, 
refers  to  Vossius  as  his  authority,  and  Vossius  says 
that  "trine  immersion  was  used  in  all  countries." 
But  mark  this,  though  Vossius  says  trine  immersion 
was  used  in  all  countries,  he  nowhere  says  that  it  was 
used  in  all  countries  in  the  first  century.  Because 
Mosheim,  when  treating  of  the  history  of  the  first 
century,  refers  to  Vossius,  it  by  no  means  follows  that 
everything  Vossius  records  occurred  in  the  first  cen- 
tury. Possibly  at  some  time  between  the  great  apos- 
tasy and  the  reformation,  trine  immersion  may  have 
prevailed  as  extensively  as  Vossius  declared ;  but  my 
friend  can  not  fix  that  time  in  the  first  century  by 
any  such  loose  inference  as  he  has  used  here  in  his 
endeavor  to  connect  the  two.  That  gap  is  not  yet 
filled  up,  and  as  it  is  now  too  late  for  my  friend  to 
bring  forward  any  new  argument,  I  venture  to  predict 
that  it  will  not  be.  If  there  had  been  any  way  of 
doing  it,  he  would  have  done  it  long  before  this. 

My  friend  built  an  argument  upon  the  statement 
"that  when  a  change  of  mode  from  trine  immersion  to 


136  DEBATE    ON    TKINE   IMMERSION. 

single  immersion  took  place,  a  change  likewise  took 
place  in  the  formula  of  baptizing — from  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
to  the  name-of  Jesus  Christ  alone;  that  a  change  of 
mode  and  a  change  of  the  name  into  which  the  be- 
liever was  baptized,  accompanied  each  other."  And 
the  main  point  upon  which  he  insists,  is  that  Christ 
authorized  and  commanded  trine  immersion  in  his  in- 
junction to  his  disciples,  to  baptize  "in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 
Very  well !  then  when  we  can  find  a  change  of  name 
we  will  have  a  change  of  mode.  Now  turn  to  Acts, 
chapter  xix.  Here  we  read  that  Paul,  in  the  course 
of  his  journeyings,  came  to  Ephesus,  where  he  found 
certain  disciples,  of  whom  he  inquired  whether  they 
had  received  the  Holy  Ghost.  They  replied  that  they 
had  not  so  much  as  heard  that  there  was  such  a  thing 
as  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whereupon  he  inquired,  "  Unto 
■what  then  were  ye  baptized?"  and  they  said,  "Unto 
John's  baptism."  Then  Paul  explained  to  them  that 
John  was  but  the  forerunner  of  Jesus,  whereupon 
(says  verse  5),  "when  they  heard  this,  they  were 
baptized  {eis  to  ^oiioma)  into  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus'^  Kow,  if  my  friend's  statement  and  reasoning 
thereon  be  correct,  that  the  change  of  the  name  into 
which  candidates  were  baptized — from  the  name  of 
all  three  of  the  divine  characters  to  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  alone — was  accompanied  by  a  change  of 
mode  from  trine  immersion  to  single  immersion,  we 
have  found  out  exactly  when  it  occurred :  it  was  at 
Ephesus,  about  twenty-five  years  after  the  commission 
was  given.  That  is,  if  his  own  reasoning  be  correct, 
that  single  immersion  was  instituted  when  baptism 
into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  was  substituted  for  the 
names  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  was  by  divine  authority. 

My  friend  has  read  numer-ous  authorities  here,  to 


MU.    m\'oNN1:L1/s    EleJIlTII    ADDRESS.  137 

prove  trine  immersion  to  have  been  the  practice  of  tlie 
primitive  cluircli,  but  tliese  statements  are  all  too 
general  and  indefinite  to  be  conclusive.  lie  brou<;lit 
Wall  to  prove  that  trine  immersion  was  "the  geneial 
practice  -of  all  antiquity."  Now,  I  would  ask,  how  far 
back  does  "all  antiquity"  extend?  Can  any  of  you 
set  any  limits  to  it?  Why,  according  to  that,  Adam 
must  have  been  immersed  three  times.  Wall's  ex- 
pression is  too  vague  and  ambiguous  to  be  accepted 
as  valid  testimony  in  this  court;  there  is  nothing  defin- 
ite about  it.  Such  general  and  sweeping  statements 
can  never  settle  the  question  before  us. 

Coming  along  down  the  stream,  my  friend  under- 
took to  prove  trine  immersion  to  have  been  the  apos- 
tolic mode  by  an  appeal  to  the  reformers.  He  read 
a  command  for  it  from  Martin  Luther.  Recollect, 
the  command  came  from  Martin  Luther,  and  not  from 
Christ.  You  see  just  how  much  that  argument 
amounts  to.  My  friend  tells  you  that  Jesus  Christ 
commands  trine  immersion;  and  when  I  ask  him  to 
prove  it,  he  comes  up  here  and  reads  a  command  from 
Martin  Luther! 

If  you  have  followed  my  friend's  argument  closely — 
and  he  now  tells  you  he  has  finished,  and  has  no  new 
argument  to  offer — you  will  recollect  just  how  far 
toward  the  apostles  and  the  commission  he  has  traced 
trine  immersion  ;  he  has  traced  it  to  TertuUian,  but 
not  one  whit  further.  You  will  recollect,  too,  the 
only  commands  for  the  practice  of  trine  immersion 
he  has  found,  are  from  Luther  in  modern  times,  and  iu 
more  ancient  times,  the  Apostolic  Canons  !  And  these, 
he  tells  you,  are  spurious.  What  we  demand  is,  the 
command  of  Jesus  Christ,  or  of  his  apostles,  or  their 
example;  but  this,  we  plainly  discover,  is  not  forth- 
coming. 

In  answer  to  my  reference  to  Noah  and  the  ark,  as 
a  type  of  baptism,  my  friend  said  that  Noah  doubtless 


138  DEBATE  ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

went  into  the  ark  frequently.  Well,  I  presume  he 
did.  But  tliere  was  a  time  when  Noah  went  into  the 
ark,  and  God  shut  him  in.  The  question  is  not 
whether  Noah  went  in  and  out  of  the  ark  frecjuently 
during  the  hundred  and  twenty  years  it  was  building, 
or  carried  sacks  of  grain  and  other  provisions  for 
himself  and  family  when  it  was  finished — that  was 
all  said  simply  to  throw  dust  in  your  eyes.  The  ar- 
gument was  upon  his  entering  in  for  salvation.  He 
wefit  in  once  for  salvation,  and  remained  there  at  God's 
command,  until  the  waters  were  abated. 

My  friend  says,  we  must  not  expect  the  type  and 
anti-type  to  agree  in  all  respects,  and  cautions  us 
against  carrying  our  search  for  resemblances  too  far, 
and  drawing  lessons  of  doctrine  from  illustrative  sym- 
bols, that  it  was  never  intended  should  be  drawn.  I 
agree  with  him  there;  but  at  the  same  time  the  type 
should  be  some  sort  of  a  guide  to  us ;  we  naturally 
expect  the  type  to  bear  some  general  resemblance  to 
the  anti-type — else  it  ceases  to  be  a  type.  The  two 
should  agree  upon  the  more  important  points.  And 
it  does  seem  to  me  that  if  trine  immersion  is  essential 
to  Christian  baptism,  that  somewhere  among  the  nu- 
merous t^'pes  and  shadows  of  baptism  with  which 
Scripture  abounds,  we  should  somewhere  have  a  hint 
of  it. 

The  Jewish  law  contained  a  type  of  baptism — the 
washing  of  the  priest  in  the  brazen  laver  at  the  en- 
trance of  the  tabernacle  (Exodus,  xxx*.  17-21);  and  the 
priest  was  commanded  to  wash  once — not  thrice — 
upon  entering  in.  So  we  contend  for  one  washing  in 
Christian  baptism.  Again :  in  Heb.  x :  22,  the  Christian 
is  invited  to  draw  near  to  Jesus — "having  our  hearts 
s})rinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies 
washed  with  pure  water."  There  is  no  hint  here  that 
our  hearts  should  be  sprinkled  and  our  bodies  washed 
thrice.     Again:  iu  Numbers,  xix:  19,  directions  are 


MR.    m'cONNELL's    eighth    ADDRESS.  139 

given  for  purifying  an  unclean  person  ;  he  must  be 
sprinkled,  ''and  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself 
in  water,  and  sliall  be  clean  at  even."  Here  one 
bathing  seems  to  have  been  sufficient  for  a  complete 
cleansing — no  hint  of  tltrce.  Again,  Paul,  in  his 
letter  to  the  Ephesians,  v :  26,  speaks  of  being 
cleansed  "  with  the  washing  of  water  by  the  word." 
Can  we  believe  the  apostle  would  not  have  said 
'•  washings"  instead  of  ''washing,"  if  to  be  cleansed 
required  three  washings  ?  "  The  washing  of  re- 
generation" (Titus  iii :  5),  I  think  I  have  already  re- 
ferred to.  Wh}^  the  apostle  did  not  say  "  washings  " 
of  regeneration,  if  it  takes  three  of  them  to  accomplish 
the  purpose,  I  leave  for  my  friend  to  explain. 

Another  thought,  upon  which  I  have  not  time  to 
enlarge,  but  merely  to  suggest  and  leave  for  your 
consideration  :  the  design  of  baptism  is  to  represent 
the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  My 
friend,  in  baptizing  three  times,  perverts  the  or- 
dinance from  its  purpose,  renders  it  inappropriate  to 
its  original  design,  by  representing  the  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Christ  says  (Matthew,  xi :  30) :  "  My  yoke  is  easy 
and  my  burden  is  light."  The  terms  of  salvation  are 
as  simple  as,  in  the  wisdom  and  providence  of  God, 
they  could  be  made.  We  have  not  to  ascend  up  to 
heaven  and  bring  Christ  down  from  above,  nor  to  de- 
scend into  the  earth  and  bring  up  Christ  from  the 
dead.  Christ  requires  but  one  immersion,  and  even 
that,  many  have  deemed  burdensome,  and  changed  to 
pouring  and  sprinkling;  none  but  our  Tonker  friends 
have  ever  deemed  this  yoke  too  liirht,  and  added  two 
more  yokes,  nniking  it  three  times  as  burdensome  as 
Christ  demands. 

In  Komans,  vi :  5,  baptism  is  compared  to  a  plant- 
ing:    *'For,  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the 


140  DEBATE    ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

likeness  of  his  [Christ's]  death,  we  shall  be  also  in 
the  likeness  of  his  resurrection."  Now,  do  we  plant 
seed  in  the  gi'ound  once,  take  it  up,  plant  it  a  second 
time,  again  take  it  u[),  and  still  a  third  time  plant  it? 
Certainly  not.  Then  we  are  not  to  be  "  buried  in 
baptism  "  three  times — or  else  planting  is  no  fitting 
representation  of  baptism.  But  again :  we  are  planted 
in  the  likeness  of  Christ's  death.  Did  Christ  die 
three  times?  If  Christ  died  but  once,  trine  im- 
mersion bears  no  resemblance  to  Christ's  death  at  all. 
Hence,  trine  immersion  is  not  Christian  baptism. 

I  Corinthians,  x:  1,  2:  ^'Moreover  brethren,  I 
would  not  that  ye  should  be  ignorant,  how  that  all 
our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed 
through  the  sea,  and  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses,  in 
the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea."  How  could  this  be  ac- 
complished if  baptism  means  trine  immersion — or  if 
the  circumstance  related  was  a  type  of  Christian  bap- 
tism ?  They  were  all  under  the  cloud.  Did  they  all 
come  out  from  under  the  cloud  and  pass  through  the 
sea  ;  and  having  passed  through  the  sea,  were  they 
again  immersed  in  the  cloud,  and  so  on,  alternately, 
until  they  had  all  been  three  times  immersed  in  the 
cloud  and  in  the  sea?  If  so,  it  must  have  been  a 
most  extraordinary,  irksome,  and  tedious  proceeding. 
But  what  were  the  facts  of  this  baptism,  as  recorded 
in  Old  Testament  history  ?  Why,  while  under  the 
cloud,  they  passed  through  the  sea;  and  by  the  cloud 
and  the  sea  were  enveloped,  immersed,  once,  and  so 
passed  over :  as  we  are  once  immersed  into  Jesus 
Christ,  in  the  true  Christian  baptism. 

Another  thought  of  my  friend's,  I  wish  to  notice. 
He  expressed  himself  as  being  utterly  astonished  that 
I  should  deny  that  the  principles  mentioned  in  the 
sixth  chapter  of  Hebrews  belonged  under  this  dis- 
pensation. I  did  not  deny  it.  I  simply  said  that  the 
apostles  referred  to  those  elementary  principles  as 


MR.  m'cONNELL'S   eighth    ADDRESS.  141 

developed  under  tlie  law.     I  did  not  deny  that  some 
of  the  principles  tliere   mentioned  belonged,  to   some 

extent perhaps   to  a  greater  extent  than  elswhere— 

under  this  dispensation.     I  did  not  deny  that  faith  in 
God  belonged  to  this  dispensation  as  well  as  to  the 
old ;  nor  that  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the 
eternal  judgment  were  to  be  at  the  close  of  this  dis- 
pensation. °I  said,  or  intended  to  say,  that  the  apostle 
referred  here  to  those  elements  as  they  were  developed 
in  the  oracles  of  God  under  the  former  dispensation. 
The  elementary  teachings  of  English  literature  are 
all  to  be  found  in  the  alphabet  of  the  English  lan- 
guage.      But  we  have  the  elementary  teachings  of 
English  literature  in   this  book,  which  I  hold  in  my 
haml   (Elements  of  English  Composition).     One  are 
the  elementary  teachings  as  developed  in  the  alphabet; 
the   othei'is  a  higher  and  fuller  development  of  the 
same  elementary  teachings.     When  I  open  this  book, 
I  find  nothing  here  but  letters— the  same  twenty-six 
letters  that  I  find  in  the  alphabet.     And  were  I  a 
teacher,  and  should  see  a  pupil  who  kept  going  over 
and  over  with  his  alphabet,  when  I  knew  that  he  ought 
to  be  out  of  it,   I  would   say   to   him— Come,  let  us 
leave  these  elements,  let  us  study  these  more  advanced 
works,  where  the  principles  of  the  language  are  more 
fullv    explained,    and    so    go    on    toward    a    perfect 
knoVledge  of  the  English   language  and  literature! 
So  the  apostle  said  to   the  Jews,  in   eff'ect,  "  Why  do 
you    Hebrews    keep   pouring   over   the    alphabet    of 
Christianity  ?     It  is  time  that  ye- ought  to  be  teachers, 
and  ye  have  need  yet  that  one  teach  you  !     Leave  the 
alphabet,  the  law  and  the  prophets,  the  rites  and  the 
ceremonies  of  an  obsolete  dispensation,  and  now  that 
the  promised  Messiah  has  come,  proceed  to  the  prac- 
tical  application   of    those   elementary   principles    in 
their  full  development  under  the  Christian  economy." 
My   friend,  by  the   way,  read   to   us   Anderson's 


142  DEBATE  ON  THINE  IMMERSION. 

translation  of  this  passage,  and  seemed  to  prefer  it 
to  the  common  version  :  "  Omitting,  therefore,  the 
elementary  Christian  teachings,"  etc.,  including  of 
course,  the  "  baptisms  "  mentioned  in  this  connection, 
and  which,  he  insists,  means  trine  immersion.  Very 
well — we  would  second  the  apostle's  advice,  under  that 
reading,  and  urge  him  to  omit  trine  immersion,  and 
practice  single  immersion  instead.  But  we  save  our 
friend  from  this  fatal  thrust  at  his  own  position,  by 
showing  that  the  apostle  was  urging  the  Hebrews  to 
omit  any  further  attempt  at  the  development  of  those 
elementary  principles  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation, 
and  adopt  the  plain,  simple  teachings  of  the  Gospel. 
[The  speaker  here  began  a  review  of  his  argument ; 
but  as  he  was  interrupted  in  his  remarks  at  the  end 
of  two  or  three  minutes,  by  the  announcement  that  his 
time  had  expired,  the  reporter  takes  the  iiberty  to 
omit  them  here,  and  insert  them  in  the  next  speech, 
"with  which  they  are  more  properly  and  intimately  con- 
nected.] 


[MR.   QUINTER'S  NINTH  ADDRESS.] 

Friendly  Moderators — My  remarks  in  response 
to  the  arguments  advanced  by  my  friend  in  his  hist 
speech  shall  be  very  brief.  I  appreciate  the  kindness 
of  the  congregation  in  remaining  so  long  and  listening 
so  attentively  as  they  have,  and  shall  endeavor  not  to 
protract  my  remarks  a  moment  longer  than  may  seem 
to  me  absolutely  necessary,  in  order  to  set  the  matter 
before  you  in  its  true  light. 

I  am  surprised  at  my  friend's  remarks  in  relation  to 
the  Greek  Chui-ch.  Certainly,  had  he  been  discussing 
the  question  of  baptism  with  a  pedobaptist,  and  had 
he  presented  the  uniform  practice  of  the  Greek 
Chui-ch  as  an  argument,  as  it  is  customary  to  do  in 
such  discussions,  and  had  his  pedobaptist  opponent 


MR.    QUINTEr's    ninth    ADDRESS.  143 

made  such  a  disposal  of  the  argument  as  he  has  done, 
he  wouM  liave  fVlt  that  it  uas  not  tlie  proper  way  to  do. 
So  with  the  argument  hased  upon  the  testimony  of  emi- 
nent reformers  and  learned  theologians.  Luther,  in 
the  case  of  the  converted  Jewess,  gave  command  tliat 
she  should  be  baptized  by  trine  immersion  ;  it  is  not 
to  be  supposed  that  this  advice  was  grounded  upon 
simply  some  whim  of  his  own  ;  he  did  it  fi-om  a  sol- 
emn conviction  that  that  was  the  proper  and  scriptural 
mode  of  baptizing.  And  I  conceive  that  the  opinions 
of  this  learned  and  coTiscientious  man,  based  upon 
the  thorough  and  careful  and  unprejudiced  investiga- 
tion he  had  given  the  subject,  ought  to  have  some 
weight  with  us.  And  the  same  with  respect  to  the 
opinions  of  the  other  able  and  eminent  scholars  whose 
testimony  I  gave  you.  But  my  friend  seemed  to 
make  very  light  of  it.  I  was,  indeed,  sorry  to 
hear  it. 

Then,  as  regards  his  illustrations  from  "  planting," 
"  sprinkling,"  etc.  His  remarks  were  such  as  I  had 
not  expected  to  hear  from  any  advocate  of  immersion. 
I  am  sorry  this  discussion  must  go  before  the  world, 
bearing  with  it  these  ideas  from  a  baptist  brother. 
My  friend  has  helped  the  pedobaptists  to  arguments 
against  immersion,  and  to  a  method  of  disposing  of 
arguments  in  favor  of  immersion,  which  I  can  not 
deem  legitimate  and  fair,  but  which  they  will  not  hes- 
itate to  take  advantage  of,  nevertheless.  I  am  very 
sorry  that  he  has  felt  that  the  support  of  his  position 
in  this  discussion  required  that  he  should  use  those 
figures  in  the  way  he  has  used  them.  I  have  given 
the  correct  principle  in  reference  to  the  use  to  be 
made,  the  lesson  to  be  derived,  from  figurative  lan- 
guage ;  there  must  be  a  leading  point  of  resemblance, 
and  when  that  point  is  gained,  it  is  enough.  We  are 
not  to  follow  the  comparison  into  every  minute  detail, 
and  expect  to  find  a  resemblance  everywhere.     In 


144  DEBATE   ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

reference  to  baptism  the  types  and  figures  used  uni- 
formly point  to  a  covering  in  water,  and  when  we  are 
covered,  it  is  enough.  The  particuhir  mode  can  not 
be  inferred  from  the  types  and  illustrative  symbols 
used  ;  that  is  given  us  in  the  commission. 

I  really  am  surprised  at  my  friend's  use  of  the  nine- 
teenth chapter  of  Acts.  My  reference  was  not  to  the 
nineteenth  of  Acts,  but  to  the  second  of  Acts.  There 
the  expression  is  not  eis  to  ^onoma,  but  epi  to  'ono- 
mati;  not  "into  the  name,"  but,  "in  the  name"  of 
Jesus  Christ ;  under  his  authority.  And  I  still  insist 
that  when  they  were  commanded,  in  the  name,  or  by 
the  authority,  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  baptism  was  per- 
formed *'  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  tlie 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  I  submit  that  the 
manner  in  which  my  friend  introduced  this  point,  and 
the  use  he  made  of  it,  if  I  understood  him  correctly 
— fori  acknowledge  it  was  difficult  for  me  to  com- 
prehend his  intention  in  this  reference — was  entiraly 
irrelevant  and  inapplicable  to  my  remarks. 

Then,  again,  upon  that  ark  question  :  When  I  first 
introduced  that,  I  saw  a  smile  upon  his  face.  I  hardly 
knew  what  interpretation  to  place  upon  that.  I  insist 
that  if  there  was  any  argument  in  his  position,  there 
was  argument  in  mine.  And  how  did  he  meet  it  at 
last  ?  He  says  Noah  went  in  only  once  to  he  saved. 
I  assert  the  probability  that  he  must  have  entered  in 
many  times,  in  order  to  be  saved.  If  he  had  not 
taken  into  the  ark  ever}^  animal  that  the  Loril  com- 
manded, he  would  have  forfeited  his  life.  Everything 
he  took  in  concerned  his  salvation.  I  repeat,  there  is 
argument  in  that,  if  there  is  any  argument  about  it 
anywhere.  I  want  to  be  candid  ;  I  want  to  be  fair ; 
I  am  willing  to  allow  him  every  legitimate  and  just 
means  of  sustaining  his  side  of  the  question  ;  but  I 
do  not  like  to  see  this  discussion  so  conducted  that 
anybody  hereafter  can  take  advantage  of  our  way  of 


MK.    QUINTER's    ninth    ADDRESS.  145 

arguing  tliese  tilings.  I  inn  truly  sorry  to  see  matters 
of  the  most  profound  and  serious  importance  treated 
in  this  light  way.  I  regret  to  observe  that  a  great 
deal  of  his  late  speeches  have  been  of  that  kind; 
there  has  been  an  air  of  trifling  and  levity  about 
them  that  has  pained  me  to  witness.  For  instance, 
about  the  yoke  of  Christ :  he  said  we  thought  it  was 
too  light,  and  so  made  it  heavier.  I  am  not  afraid 
Buch  remarks  will  work  any  injury  to  us,  who  are  the 
subjects  of  them  ;  but  I  do  fear  they  will  injure  our 
common  cause.  The  question  with  us  is  not  whether 
a  thing  is  easy  or  pleasant,  but  is  it  necessary,  is  it 
right,  is  it  the  command  of  the  Saviour  ?  We  do  not 
think  three  immersions  heav}',  nor  ten,  if  the  Lord  had 
commanded  them.  I  think  our  brethren  go  into  the 
water  as  cheerfully,  and  come  out  as  rejoicingly,  when 
immersed  three  times,  as  his  brethren  do  upon  being 
immersed  once.  But,  as  I  said  before,  it  is  not  a 
question  of  comfort  and  convenience,  but  of  com- 
mand. And  I  have  shown  you  that  the  command  is, 
to  baptize  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  into  the 
name  of  the  Son,  and  into  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Spirit — one  great,  glorious,  holy  ordinance  in  three 
immersions,  into  the  three  names  of  the  three  divine 
characters — Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit. 

I  think  I  have  answered  all  the  points  presented  by 
my  my  friend.  If  I  have  neglected  any,  it  has  been 
an  unintentional  overlooking,  for  I  have  endeavored 
to  pay  due  attention  to  each.  There  are  several  argu- 
ments yet  which  I  should  have  been  glad  to  offer;  but 
as  it  has  been  arranged  that  the  discussion  upon  this 
subject  should  close  to-day,  and  as  we  are  now  upon 
our  concluding  speeches,  during  which  no  new  matter 
can  be  presented,  I  must  let  them  pass.  I  shall  oc- 
cupy the  remainder  of  the  time  allowed  me  with  a 
brief  review  of  the  arguments  I  have  presented  during 
the  past  two  days. 
10 


146  DEBATE   ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

My  first  argument  was  founded  upon  the  peculiar 
form  of  tlie  word  baptizo,  used  bj  our  Lord  in  giving 
his  commission.  I  told  you  that  learned  men,  excel- 
lent lexicographers  and  grammarians,  in  their  exami- 
nation of  this  word,  had  found  the  idea  of  plurality  or 
repeated  action  inherent  in  the  word,  and  that  this 
peculiarity,  as  these  men  have  conceived,  had  much 
to  do  with  its  being  selected  by  the  great  Christian 
Lawgiver  when  establishing  the  ordinance  of  baptism 
in  his  church.  As  this  point  has  been  pretty  fully 
discussed,  I  refer  to  it  here  only  because  it  forms  one 
upon  my  list  of  arguments  which  I  am  hastily  review- 
ing. 

My  second  argument  was  founded  upon  the  testi- 
mony of  the  ancient  Christian  Fathers  as  to  the  mean- 
in(^  of  the  lan'jjuao'e  used  in  the  commission.  And  I 
asked  you  to  draw  this  distinction  :  that  it  was  not 
their  views  upon  the  subject  of  baptism  that  we  were 
looking  at,  but  their  interpretation  of  the  language  of 
the  commission — the  native  language  of  some  of  them. 
I  am  fully  aware  of  the  superstition  that  existed  in 
their  age,  and  by  which  they  were  surrounded.  But 
I  do  not  think  that  the  superstition  that  existed  in 
their  age,  or  even  by  which  their  own  minds  might 
have  been  imbued,  to  some  extent,  should  nullify  and 
impeach  their  testimony  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of 
a  certain  phrase  in  the  Greek,  Latin,  or  any  other  lan- 
guage in  which  they  might  have  found  that  phrase. 
And  here  I  want  to  say  tliat  the  same  objection  that 
my  friend  insinuated  against  these  witnesses,  is  always 
insinuated  against  them  when  we  immersionists  call 
up  their  testimony  in  our  controversies  with  the  pedo- 
baptists  ;  but  that  I  do  not  deem  that  such  imsinua- 
tions  are  just  and  fair.  We  look  at  the  matter  in  this 
light :  in  our  courts  of  justice,  a  man's  peculiar  re- 
ligious notions  constitute  no  reason  why  his  testiuiony 
should  be  rejected.     A  man  may  be  a  Spiritualist,  or 


MR.    QUFNTER  S    NINTH    ADDRESS.  14  < 

hold  to  the  strangest  notions  imnginablc ;  but  this 
wouhl  not  be  sufficient  reason  for  discarding  his  tes- 
timony upon  a  mere  matter  of  fact.  So  with  regard 
to  these  men  ;  they  may  not  have  been  sound  on  every 
subject;  they  may  have  hehl  to  some  superstitious 
or  fanciful  notions;  but  as  learned  men,  as  scholars, 
they  could  understand  the  meaning  of  words  and 
phrases  in  their  own,  or  another  language,  when 
looked  at  in  the  light  of  their  scholarship.  And  I 
showed  that  these  men — Tertullian,  one  of  the  most 
learned  of  the  Latin  Fathers,  and  Chrysostora,  one 
of  the  most  learned  of  the  Greek  Fathers,  and  others 
— in  reading  the  commission,  conceived  trine  immer- 
sion to  be  taught  there;  when  they  read  "baptizing 
into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,"  they  accepted,  as  a  legitimate  deduc- 
tion from  that  form  of  expression,  the  idea  that  there 
was  to  be  a  baptism  into  each  of  the  names  mentioned. 
M}'  third  argument  was  drawn  from  the  supposed 
design  of  the  peculiar  phraseology  of  the  baptismal 
foiniula.  Recollect,  I  said,  not  the  design  of  baptism, 
but  of  the  language  of  the  commission  in  which  bap- 
tism was  commanded.  The  three  names,  represent- 
ing the  three  distinct  characters  or  offices  in  the  Di- 
vinity, are  all  brou^rht  together  here — i.  e.,  side  by 
side,  but  separate.  When  the  believer  is  baptized,  and 
commences  a  Christian  life,  he  has  all  these  glorious 
names  and  characters  before  him,  and  enters  into 
them;  he  feels  that  he  has  all  the  blessino;  those  char- 
acters  confer,  all  the  advantages  of  "the  office  they  sev- 
erally lill  in  the  great  work  of  salvation.  My  friend 
has  several  times  dropped  the  idea  that  we  can  not  en- 
ter into  one  of  these  names  or  characters,  without  en- 
tering into  all.  I  accept  that  idea.  The  state  of  heart 
which  prepares  the  believer  for  an  immersion  into 
one,  will  necessarily  prepare  him  for  an  immersion 
into  all.     lie  whose  lyeart  is  right,  v/ants  to  be  in  the 


148  DEBATE    ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

church ;  to  enjoy  the  fellowship  of  Christians  ;  to  ob- 
tain all  the  advantages  conferred  by  an  admission 
into  all  the  divine  characters.  If  he  did  not  feel  this 
way,  he  would  not  want  to  be  baptized  into  any ;  he 
would  not  be  a  fit  person  to  be  baptized  into  any.  But 
in  the  divine  economy,  it  has  been  so  arranged  that 
the  believer  enters  into  the  Father  by  being  baptized 
into  the  name  of  the  Father;  he  enters  into  the  Son 
by  being  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Son  ;  he  en- 
ters into  the  Holy  Spirit  by  being  baptized  into  the 
name  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  I  have  admitted  the  unity 
of  the  three  divine  characters,  as  taught  elsewhere  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  but  I  contend  that  their  plural- 
ity is  taught  in  the  commission;  and  that  the  plurality 
of  characters  combined  in  the  great  work  of  salvation, 
is  beautifully  illustrated  in  our  manner  of  baptism. 

My  fourth  argument  was  drawn  from  the  structure 
of  the  language  which  constitutes  the  baptismal  for- 
mula. I  proved  that,  in  order  to  render  the  sentence 
containing  the  formula  complete  and  full  in  its  gram- 
matical structure,  certain  words  were  necessary  to  be 
supplied  mentally^  and  that  when  so  supplied,  the  cor- 
rect reindering  would  be  as  follows  :  "  Baptizing 
them  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  baptizing  them 
into  the  name  of  the  Son,  and  baptizing  them  into  the. 
name  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  We  believe  this  to  be  the 
correct  rendering  of  the  formula,  and  we  believe  that 
this  language  requires  a  repetition  of  the  act  of  bap- 
tizing. h\  the  formula,  the  characters  are  set  before 
us  separate  and  distinct,  and  in  order  to  introduce 
the  believer  into  each,  a  certain  act,  the  act  of  immer- 
sion, is  designated  in  connection  with  each.  My 
friend  opposes  this  idea  by  a  reference  to  the  "  one 
baptism  "  mentioned  by  Paul,  in  his  letter  to  the  Ephe- 
siaus ;  but  this  one  baptism  must  be  interpreted  in 
the  light  of  the  baptismal  formula,  which  commands 
three  acts  to  constitute  this  one  baptism. 


MR.    QUINTER'S   ninth    ADDRESS.  149 

In  my  fifth  argument,  I  showed  you  that  Paul 
recognized  a  plurality  of  immersions  in  Christian 
baptism.  My  friend  evaded  this  point  by  denying 
that  Paul  had  any  reference  to  Christian  bnptism, 
putting  a  construction  upon  the  passage  that  I  never 
heard  before,  and  I  think  none  of  you  ever  did  ;  and 
it  is  a  construction  that  I  can  not  by  any  means  admit. 

My  arguments  to-day,  from  the  practice  of  the 
primitive  Christians  as  recorded  by  historians  ;  from 
the  fact  that  we  have  a  clear  historical  account  of  the 
time  when,  the  place  where,  and  the  circumstances 
under  which,  single  immersion  was  first  introduced, 
proving  that  trine  immersion  must  have  been  the  uni- 
form mode  previous  to  that  time  ;  from  the  fiict  that 
reformers,  eminent  theologians,  and  learned  authors, 
of  modern  times,  many  of  whom  did  not  themselves 
practice  trine  immersion,  nevertheless  acknowledged 
it  to  be  unquestionably  the  primitive  mode  ;  from  the 
uniform  practice  of  the  Greek  Church,  of  many  mill- 
ions of  Greeks,  from  the  beginning  until  now,  who 
may  be  supposed  to  know  the  meaning  of  the  Greek 
language,  and  who  follow  the  practice  that  has  been 
handed  down  to  them  from  time  immemorial;  these 
arguments,  that  I  have  presented  to-day,  must  be 
fresh  in  your  memories,  and  I  will  not  review  them 
any  further  than  by  this  simple  enumeration  of  them. 
The  arguments  produced  by  my  friend  in  opposition 
to  the  proposition,  I  could  not  anticipate,  and  some  of 
them  were  utterly  new  to  me;,  but  1  have  met  them 
as  best  I  could,  in  the  limited  time  allowed,  and  I 
think  have  disposed  of  them  satisfactorily  to  any  un- 
prejudiced mind. 

Tlianking  you  again  for  the  patient  attention  you 
manifested,  and  hoping  you  will  give  the  subject  your 
careful  and  prayerful  consideration,  I  now  conclude 
the  remarks  1  have  to  offer  upon  this  subject.  [Time 
expired. 


150  DEBATE    ON    TRINE   IMxMERSION. 

[MR.  McCONNELL'S  NINTH  ADDRESS.] 

Gentlemen  Moderators — My  friend  says  he  is 
sorry  that  those  criticisms  of  mine,  upon  the  apostolic 
allusions  to  bapfisma  (baptisms),  and  upon  the  apos- 
tle's comparisons  of  baptism  to  burying,  planting, 
etc.,  are  to  go  before  the  public.  I  am  not.  I  want 
them  to  go  broadcast  before  the  world.  I  supposed 
"when  I  made  them  that  he  would  prefer  they  should 
not  go  before  the  public,  for  they  tell  severely  against 
the  proposition  he  is  endeavoring  to  sustain.  But  I 
did  not  expect  to  do  everything  to  please*  him  exactly  ; 
I  did  not  undertake  to  shape  my  arguments  to  suit 
his  convenience.  But  the  fears  he  expresses  are 
groundless  :  I  will  warrant  him  that  no  pedobaptist 
or  advocate  of  sprinkling  or  pouring  will  ever  appeal 
to  my  arguments  to  support  his  position. 

I  fail  to  comprehend  my  friend's  logic  in  one  re- 
spect; or  if  I  comprehend  it,  I  fail  to  duly  appreciate. 
The  question  under  discussion  is,  whether  three  im- 
mersions are  commanded  in  the  commission.  He 
asserts — I  deny,  and  send  him  to  the  record  for  proof. 
I  ask  for  a  single  precept  or  example  from  the  apos- 
tles. Thereupon  he  claims  that  the  New  Testament 
is  full  of  trine  immersion;  that  every  time  any  of  the 
apostles  baptized  a  believer,  it  was  by  trine  immersion 
— because  the  commission  commands  trine  immersion. 
And  this  is  his  proof  that  the  commission  doef^  teach 
trine  immersion!  That  is  what  the  books  call  ''rea- 
soning in  a  circle  " — which  is  only  a  round-about  way 
of  saying,  no  reasoning  at  all! 

My  friend  appears  to  have  entirely  misapprehended 
the  drift  of  my  argument  on  the  nineteenth  of  Acts. 
I  did  not  deny  that  Peter  told  the  repentant  Jews  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost  to  repent  and  be  baptized  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ,  under  his  authority.  But  that 
occurrence   is  related  in  the  second  of  Acts,  which  I 


MR.  m'connell's  ninth  address.  151 

was  not  referring  to  at  all.  There,  I  know,  the  word 
is  epi,  '*  in  ;"  but  in  the  nineteenth  it  is  eis,  wliich 
ought  to  be  translated,  "  into,"  though  our  common 
version  reads  '^  in  "  here  also.  But  my  argument  was 
brought  up  to  meet  another  point  entirely.  It  was 
intended  to  refer  to  his  assertion  that  there  was  a 
time  when  a  change  was  made  from  trine  immersion 
to  sinorle  immersion  ;  and  that  that  chan^ije  was  con- 
nected  with  a  change  in  the  formula  for  baptizing, 
from  "baptizing  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  to  "  baptizing  into 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,"  alone.  Then  I  brought 
up  the  nineteenth  of  Acts,  where  Paul  baptized  the 
believers  at  Ephesus  {eis  to  ^onoma)  "  into  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus."  Consequently  (according  to  his 
own  argument),  that  must  have  been  the  time  when 
the  change  was  made  from  trine  immersion  to  single 
immersion  ;  and  the  apostle  Paul  is  responsible  for 
the  change ;  and  he  acted  under  the  direction  of  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

I  am  sorry  that  my  friend  felt  hurt  at  the  smile 
that  played  upon  my  face  when  he  introduced  his  idea 
concerning  the  ark  ;  I  really  could  not  help  it.  And 
I  must  own  that  I  smiled  again,  inside  of  my  lips, 
when  he  referred  to  it  again.  But  he  seems  to  fail 
to  appreciate  what  I  mean  when  I  said  that  there  was 
only  one  entering  in  unto  salvation.  We  read  (Gen- 
esis, vii :)  that  *'  the  Lord  said  unto  Noah,  '  Come 
thou,  and  all  thy  house,  into  the  ark  ;'  "  and  further, 
that  beasts,  and  cattle,  and  every  creeping  thing, 
went  in  unto  Noah,  "  as  God  had  commanded  him ; 
and  God  shut  Jiim  in."  Now,  if  Noah  had  taken  in 
all  his  family,  and  all  the  beasts  and  cattle  and  fowls 
and  creeping  things,  and  after  thus  going  in  hundreds 
of  times,  \\\n\  finally  stayed  out  himself,  he  wouhl  not 
have  been  saved.  That  last  goinor  in  is  what  1  call, 
going  in  unto  salvation.     That  last  entering  in  is  the 


152  DEBATE   ON    TRINE   IMMERSION. 

only  entering  that  can  with  any  propriety  be  called  a 
type  of  baptism. 

In  summing  up  the  arguments  upon  the  negative, 
I  can  not  pursue  as  systematic  a  course  as  my  friend 
has  done;  he  who  holds  the  affirmative  must  always 
have  the  advantage  in  this  respect,  as  the  rebutting 
arguments  and  negative  positions  called  out  in  reply 
depend  very  much  upon  the  course  pursued  by  the 
affirmant  in  the  discussion,  and  I  could  not  prepare 
and  arrange  them  beforehand  as  my  friend  has  been 
doing  for  probably  the  last  year.  I  say  this  as  a  par- 
tial excuse  for  the  order,  or  rather  the  lack  of  order, 
in  which,  peradventure,  many  things  may  appear  when 
put  upon  record. 

I  have  argued  that  three  separate  immersions  can 
not  be  necessary,  from  the  purpose  and  design  of  the 
ordinance  of  baptism.  By  baptism  we  are  made 
members  of  the  heavenly  family.  My  friend  has 
argued  that  to  do  this  three  acts  are  necessary — one 
to  change  our  relation  to  God,  a  second  to' change  our 
relation  to  Christ,  and  a  third  to  change  our  relation 
to  the  Holy  Spirit.  I  have  argued  that  07ie  act,  which 
changes  our  relation  to  one  member  of  the  heavenly 
family,  changes  our  relation  to  all.  I  have  illustrated 
it  by  the  case  of  the  man  who  by  one  act  of  naturaliza- 
tion, becomes  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  of  the 
State  of  Iowa,  and  of  the  municipality  in  which  he 
resides.  I  might  illustrate  it  farther,  by  the  case  of 
a  poor  orphan  boy,  vv^ith  no  home,  no  father,  no 
brother,  no  family.  My  friend,  here,  takes  pity  upon 
him,  and  finding  him  worthy  of  the  honor,  adopts  him 
into  his  household.  Now,  that  one  act  of  juioptioa 
makes  the  poor  orphan  boy  a  son  to  my  friend,  a 
brother  to  the  children  of  my  friend,  and  introduces 
him  into  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  the  fam- 
ily. So  one  act  of  adoption,  represented  in  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism,  makes  the  believer  a  child  of  God, 


MR.    m'CONNELL's   ninth   ADDRESS.  153 

a  brotlier  to  Jesus  Clirist,  a  recipient  of  the  Messing 
conferred  through  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
entitles  him  to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of 
a  member  of  the  divine  family.  My  friend,  in  his 
last  speech,  said  he  accepted  the  idea  advanced  by 
me,  that  one  act  of  baptism,  changing  the  relation  of 
the  believer  to  the  Father,  brought  him  into  a  new 
relationship  to  the  Son,  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit  also. 
Since,  then,  the  first  act  of  immersion  brings  the  be- 
liever into  a  new  relation  to  the  Father,  and  a  new 
relationship  to  the  Son  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit  neces- 
sarily results,  the  o1:her  two  acts  are  of  no  use  what- 
ever ;  they  are  "vain  repetitions,"  which  our  Saviour 
expressly  condemns. 

My  friend's  first  half  hour  was  spent  in  an  eiFort 
to  prove  that  the  word  haptizo  meant  to  immerse 
repeatedly ;  in  his  second  speech  he  candidly  admitted 
that  no  conclusive  argument  could  be  drawn  from  this, 
as  the  word  did  not  always  and  necessarily  mean  to 
immerse  repeatedh^  I  have  proved  that  throughout 
the  classics  it  in  no  place  necessarily  conveyed  the  idea 
of  repeated  immersion,  and  in  many  places  necessarily 
excluded  any  such  idea.  But  taking  him  upon  his 
own  ground,  I  have  respectfully  asked  him  how  he 
determines  when  the  word  means  to  immerse  but  once, 
and  when  it  means  to  immerse  more  than  once?  And 
how  determine  which  meaning  it  has  in  the  commis- 
sion? And  if  it  means  to.  immerse  repeatedly,  by 
what  means  does  he  determine  how  often  f 

I  wouhi  call  the  attention  of  this  audience  to  the 
fact  that  a  very  small  proportion  of  my  friend's  argu- 
ments have  been  drawn  from  the  Word  of  God,  and  a 
very  large  proportion  of  it  from  the  words  of  men. 
I  would  not  cast  any  reflection  upon  the  Christian 
Fathers,  and  the  other  commentators  and  annotators 
whom  he  has  mentioned ;  but  I  have  suggested  for 
your  consideration  the  well  known  fact  that  they  lived 


154  DEBATE    ON    TRINE    IMMERSION. 

in  certain  ages,  and  under  peculiar  circumstances, 
which  must,  almost  of  necessity,  give  some  bias  or 
prejudice  to  their  opinions.  We  know  that  many  of 
them  advocated  the  most  erroneous,  foolish,  heathen- 
ish, degrading  practices  in  connection  with  Christi- 
anity. And  when  we  know  that  their  opinions  were 
so  far  out  of  the  way  in  reference  to  many  other 
points,  we  feel  that  their  opinion  is  not  sufficient  to 
settle  satisfactorily  the  meaning  of  the  commission — 
the  only  authority  we  have  for  baptizing  at  all.  He 
says,  we  would  not  reject  the  testimony  of  a  man  who 
was  a  Spiritualist,  upon  a  simple  point  of  fact.  I  say, 
if  a  witness  was  an  infatuated  Spiritualist,  and  the 
fact  in  question  was  connected  with  Spiritualism,  I 
would  not  accept,  without  considerable  discount,  his 
testimon}^  upon  that  subject.  Neither  will  I  accept  the 
mere  statement  of  a  trine  immersionist  when  that  is 
the  subject  in  dispute. 

My  friend  brought  a  heavy  array  of  historical  tes- 
timony'^, and  managed  to  trace  trine  immersion  as  far 
toward  the  apostles  as  Tertullian's  time — some  two 
centuries  this  side  of  the  commission.  This  gap  my 
friend  endeavored  to  fill  up  by  hitching  together 
Mosheim  and  Vossius.  Vossius  somewhere  wrote  that 
trine  immersion  prevailed  in  all  countries  ;  and  Mos- 
heim, in  his  history,  while  treating  of  matters  in  the 
first  century,  in  a  note  at  the  bottom  of  the  page, 
refers  to  Vossius ;  whence  my  friend  would  have  you 
infer  that  trine  immersion  prevailed  in  nil  countries  in 
the  first  century.  We  have  showed  the  falhicy  of  this. 
Aside  from  this,  my  friend  produced  nothing  that  even 
looked  like  evidence  that  trine  immersion  existed 
farther  back  than  the  time  of  Tertullian. 

I  think  this  covers  nearly  the  entire  ground  of  my 
friend's  arguments — except,  perhaps,  that  upon  tiie 
grammatical  structure  of  the  commission,  and  1  doubt 
not  you  have  had  grammar  enougli  for  one  discussion. 


MR.    m'cOXXELL's    ninth    ADDRESS.  155 

In  reply,  I  brou^^lit  you  numGrous  other  passnges  sim- 
iliir  in  construction  to  the  commission,  wliich  no  one 
couhl  prestime  to  assert  required  more  than  one  action. 
Such  as  Luke,  ix  :  10,  where,  according  to  his  logic, 
Christ  at  his  second  coming  must  come  three  times — 
once  in  his  own  glory,  again  in  the  glory  of  his  Father, 
and  a  third  time  in  the  glory  of  his  holy  angels, 
^latthew,  xxiii :  1,  where,  according  to  his  method  of 
interpreting  Scripture,  we  must  understand  that  Christ 
spoke  to  the  multitude,  and  then  turned  about  to  his  dis- 
ciples and  made  the  same  speech  to  them.  Matthew, 
viii :  11,  where  his  mode  of  analyzing  the  commission 
would  compel  us  to  understand  that  many  shall  come 
from  the  east,  and  sit  down  with  Abraham  ;  then  go 
back,  come  from  the  east  a  second  time,  and  sit  down 
with  Isaac  ;  go  back  yet  again,  come  back  a  third  time, 
and  sit  down  with  Jacob;  and  then  go  through  the 
same  ceremony  by  coming  three  times  from  the  west, 
and  sitting  down  with  each  patriarch  separately.  And 
other  illustrations  I  brought,  and  scores  more  I  might 
have  brought,  to  prove  that  his  manner  of  analyzing 
the  commission  was  unjustifiable  and  necessarily  in- 
correct. 

In  support  of  our  position  on  the  negative  of  this 
question,  we  referred  to  the  many  texts  showing  the 
oneness  of  Christian  baptism.  Paul  uses  an  expres- 
sion which  alone  is  sufficient  to  overthrow  all  the 
arguments  that  have  been  adduced  or  can  ever  be 
adduced  against  it :  '*  One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  immer- 
sion.^^ To  this  we  invite  your  special  and  serious 
attention. 

Then  there  are  the  numerous  types  of  baptism — 
the  washing  in  the  brazen  laver,  the  entrance  of  Noah 
into  the  ark,  the  baptism  of  the  Israelites  in  the  cloud 
and  in  the  sea,  etc.,  in  none  of  which  is  there  the 
least  hint  of  more  than  a  single  act.  And  the  other 
references  to  baptism,  which,  if  not  exactly  types,  are 


156  DEBATE    ON   TRINE   IMMERSION. 

illustrations,  comparisons,  symbols — the  planting  of 
the  seed,  the  washing  of  regeneration,  etc.;  all  point- 
ing to  one  act,  and  no  more.  And  baptism  is  a  type 
or  symbol  of  Christ's  resurrection  ;  and  as  Christ  died 
once,  was  buried  once,  and  rose  once,  so  in  baptism 
there  is  one  burial,  and  one  resurrection.  My  friend's 
mould  of  Christ  would  represent  him  as  having  passed 
through  three  deaths,  three  burials,  and  three  resur- 
rections. My  friend  evidently  has  not  the  right 
mould ;  it  must  have  been  made  after  some  other 
pattern.  Then  we  contend  that  one  immersion  con- 
stitutes the  one  baptism  by  which  the  believer  is 
introduced  into  the  one  Church  of  God.  \_Time 
expired. 

I  thank  the  audience  for  mj^self,  and  I  am  sure  I 
may  do  the  same  for  my  friend,  for  their  attendance, 
and  patience,  and  kind  attention  during  the  discussion 
of  this  question. 


DEBATE 


THE   LORD'S   SUPPER 


PROPOSITION  II. 

THE  BREAD  AND  WINE  WHICH  ARE  TO  BE  TAKEN  BY  THE  DIS- 
CIPLES OF  CHRIST  IN  KEMLMBKANCE  OF  HIM,  CONSTITUTE  THE 
LORDS   SUPPER. 


[MR  McCONNELL'S  FIRST  xiDDRESS.] 

Gentlemen  Moderators — I  am  pleased  to  see  so 
large  an  audience  assembled  again  this  beautiful 
morning,  and  am  thankful  for  the  blessings  of  life  and 
health,  and  for  this  opportunity  to  continue  the  inves- 
tigation of  God's  holy  truth,  in  order  that  we  ma}''  as- 
certain for  ourselves  what  God  requires  at  our  hands. 

As  introductory  to  the  subject  under  discussion,  I 
will  call  your  attention  to  the  reading  of  a  part  of  the 
eleventh  chapter  of  I  Corinthians,  commencing  at  the 
seventeenth  verse: 

"Now  in  this  that  I  declare  unto  you,  I  praise  you 
not,  in  that  ye  come  together,  not  for  the  better,  but 
for  the  worse.  (Verse  18  :)  For  first  of  all,  when  ye 
come  together  in  the  church,  I  hear  that  there  be  di- 
visions among  you;  and  I  partly  believe  it;  (verse 
19  :)  for  there  must  be  also  heresies  among  you,  that 
they  which  are  approved  may  be  made  manifest  among 
you.  (Verse  20  :)  When  ye  come  together,  therefore, 
into  one  place,  this  is  not  to  eat  the  Lord's  Supper  ; 
(verse  21:)  for  in  eating  every  one  taketh  before 
other  his  own  supper  :  and  one  is  hungry,  and  another 
is  drunken.  (Verse  22  : )  What !  have  ye  not  houses 
to  eat  and  to  drink  in  ?  or  despise  ye  the  church  of 

157 


158       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD's  SUPPER. 

God,  and  shame  them  that  have  not  ?  What  shall  I 
say  to  you?  Shall  I  praise  you  in  this?  I  praise  you 
not.  (Verse  23:)  Fori  have  received  of  the  Lord 
that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you  ;  that  the  Lord 
Jesus,  the  same  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,  took 
bread;  (verse  24:)  and  when  he  had  given  thanks, 
he  brake  it  and  said,  Take,  eat;  this  is  mj  body,  which 
is  broken  for  you  ;  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me. 
(Verse  25  :)  After  the  same  manner  also  he  took  the 
cup,  w^hen  he  had  supped,  saying,  This  cup  is  the  new 
testament  in  my  blood;  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink 
it,  in  remembrance  of  me.  (Verse  26:)  For  as  often 
as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show 
the  Lord's  death,  till  he  come.  (Verse  27  :)  Where- 
fore, whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this 
cup  of  the  Lord,  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  Lord.  (Verse  28  :)  But  let  a 
man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that  bread 
and  drink  of  that  cup.  (Verse  29  : )  For  he  that 
eatetli  and  drinketh  unworthil}^,  eateth  and  drinketh 
damnation  to  himself,  not  discerning  the  Lord's  body. 
(Verse  30  :)  For  this  cause,  many  are  weak  and  sickly 
among  you,  and  many  sleep.  (Verse  31 :)  For,  if  we 
would  judge  ourselves,  we  should  not  be  judged; 
(verse  32  :)  but  when  we  are  judged  we  are  chastened 
of  the  Lord,  that  we  should  not  be  condemned  with 
the  world.  (Verse  33  :)  Wherefore,  my  brethren,  when 
ye  come  together  to  eat,  tarry  one  for  another  ;  (verse 
3-4 :)  and  if  any  man  hunger,  let  him  eat  at  home  ; 
that  ye  come  not  together  unto  condemnation.  And 
the  rest  will  I  set  in  order  when  I  come." 

The  proposition  we  are  to  discuss  this  morning,  I 
need  not  say,  is  one  of  transcendent  importance.  It 
involves  one  of  the  most  solemn,  significant,  and  im- 
pressive institutions  in  the  Christian  economy.  We 
are  therefore  called  upon  to  examine  this  cpiestion 
with  more  than  ordinary  interest,  solemnity,  and  candor. 


1 


MR.    m'cONNRLL's   first   ADDRESS.  159 

The  Bible  abounds  in  commemorative  institutions. 
Tlie  Ahuii^lity  Father,  knowin*^  man's  liability  to  foi-get 
tlie  most  important  events  connected  Avith  his  history, 
has  established  institutions,  the  observance  of  Avhich 
is  well  calculated  to  refresh  our  memories,  awaken 
our  gratitude,  and  contribute  to  our  spiritual  enjoy- 
ment and  well-being.  All  the  nations  of  the  earth 
have  followed  the  example  thus  set ;  hence  our  own 
Fourth  of  July,  Eighth  of  January,  Twenty-second 
of  February,  and  other  observances  that  point  to  im- 
portant events  in  our  own  national  history.  Under 
the  Jewish  economy,  there  were  the  Sabbath,  the 
Passover,  the  Pentecost,  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles, 
and  various  other  institutions  of  a  similar  character. 
Tliese  were  all  commemorative,  and  also  typical ;  the 
i\Iosaic  law  itself  was  but  a  shadow  of  good  things  to 
come,  and  was  typical  of  another  and  a  better  institu- 
tion, as  Paul  clearly  sets  forth  in  his  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  We  propose  to  briefly  examine  into  some 
of  these  institutions  of  a  former  economy,  that  we 
may  thereby  gain  a  more  clear  understanding  of  the  in- 
stitutions established  under  the  Christian  dispensation. 

The  apostle  Paul  says,  in  his  letter  to  the  Romans 
(xv:  4):  "  Whatsoever  things  were  written  aforetime, 
were  written  for  our  learning,  that  we  through  pa- 
tience and  comfort  of  the  Scriptures  might  have 
hope."  It  becomes  us,  thei-efore,  to  carefully  study 
into  the  true  meaning  and  intent  of  these  things  that 
were  written  aforetime,  and  set  forth  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament Scriptures,  that  we  may  have  strong  conso- 
lation and  good  hope,  while  engaged  in  the  practice 
of  the  things  enjoined  in  the  New  Testament.  In 
pursuance  of  this  purpose,  I  will  try  to  give  you  a 
brief  analysis  of  some  of  God's  commemorative  and 
typical  institutions.  Such  an  analysis  will  aid  us  very 
much,  I  apprehend,  in  coming  to  a  clear  and  correct 
understanding  of  the  subject  under  consideration. 


IGO       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD's  SUPPER. 

In  all  these  commemorative  and  typical  institutions 
we  find — 1st,  the  elements  employed  ;  2d,  the  things 
to  be  done  ;  3d,  the  persons  by  whom  these  things 
are  to  be  done ;  4th,  the  time  when  they  are  to  be 
done  ;  5th,  the  place  where  they  are  to  be  done  ;  6th, 
the  object  for  which  they  are  to  be  done  ;  7th,  the 
perpetuity  of  the  institution,  or  length  of  time  it  is  to 
continue.  A  little  investigation  will  show  us  that  all 
these  points  obtain  in  every  commemorative  and 
typical  institution  established  by  the  command  of  God 
under  the  former  dispensation,  as  recorded  in  the  Old 
Testament. 

As  our  first  illustration,  we  will  call  attention  to  the 
institution  of  the  Sabbath.  1st,  the  thing  involved  is 
the  seventh  day  of  the  week.  2d,  the  thing  to  be 
done  is  to  remember  it,  observe  it,  keep  it  holy  ;  as 
set  forth  in  the  fourth  commandment  (Exodus,  xx  : 
8).  3d,  the  Israelites  were  the  persons  commanded 
to  keep  holy  the  Sabbath  day.  4th,  the  time  when  ; 
which  in  the  case  of  this  institution  was  from  evening 
to  evening — from  the  setting  of  the  sun  on  the  sixth 
dny  till  the  setting  of  the  sun  on  the  seventh  day. 
5th,  the  place  where  they  happened  to  be ;  in  their 
tents  while  in  the  wilderness,  in  their  habitations 
when  they  came  to  be  a  settled  people  ;  "  let  no  man 
go  out  of  his  pLace,"  said  the  law  ;  "  kindle  no  fire 
in  all  your  habitations."  6th,  the  object  for  which  the 
Sabbatli  was  to  be  observed  was,  to  commemorate, 
first,  the  completion  of  creation  (Exodus,  xx),  and 
secondly,  God's  bringing  the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt; 
and  it  was  also  typical  of  Christ's  lying  in  the  grave, 
and  of  our  everlasting  rest  in  heaven.  7th,  it  was  to 
continue  until  Christ  arose  from  the  dead. 

If  we  examine  the  Passover,  we  find  the  same 
points  in  connection  therewith.  1st,  the  elements 
emph)yed  are  tlie  rousted  lamb,  bitter  herbs,  an<l  un- 
leavened bread;  2d,  the  things  to  be  done  were,  the 


161 

blood  of  the  lamb  was  to  be  sprinkled  upon  the  lintels 
and  door-posts,  and  its  flesh  was  to  be  roasted  and 
eaten  with  the  bitter  herbs  and  the  unleavened  bread; 
3d,  the  children  of  Israel  were  to  attend  to  this  ob- 
servance ;  4th,  the  time  when  it  was  to  be  done  was 
on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month,  the  month 
of  Abib  ;  5th,  the  place  where  it  was  to  be  done  was 
Jerusalem  ;  6th,  its  object  or  purpose  was,  to  com- 
memorate the  passing  over  of  the  houses  of  the  He- 
brews by  the  angel  of  death,  that  destroyed  the  first- 
born of  the  Egyptians;  it  was  also  a  type  of  Christ; 
7th,  it  was  to  be  observed  till  Christ  was  crucified. 

In  the  Feast  of  Pentecost,  the  same  leading  points 
are  observable.  1st,  the  elements  employed  were  to 
be  two  wave  loaves,  seven  lambs,  one  young  bullock, 
etc.;  2d,  they  were  to  be  waved  before  the  Lord,  and 
then  burned  ;  3d,  the  priests  were  to  do  this ;  4th,  it 
was  to  be  done  fifty-three  days  after  the  slaying  of 
the  paschal  lamb  ;  5th,  it  was  to  be  done  at  the  door 
of  the  tabernacle,  or  the  temple  ;  6th,  it  Avas  commem- 
orative of  the  giving  of  the  law  from  Mt.  Sinai;  and 
it  was  typical  of  the  publication  of  the  new  covenant — 
the  coming  in  of  a  new  dispensation;  7th,  it  was  to 
continue  till  the  crucifixion  of  Christ. 

After  these  preliminary  observations,  we  now  invite 
your  attention  to  the  institution  under  consideration — - 
the  Lord's  Supper.  Connected  with  this  are  all  the 
leading  points  mentioned  as  being  present  in  the  com- 
memorative institutions  before  mentioned.  1st,  the 
elements  employed  were  bread  and  wine;  2d,  the 
thing  to  be  done  was  to  eat  and  drink  these  elements  ; 
3d,  the  persons  who  were  to  do  this  were  the  disciples 
of  Christ;  4ch,  the  time  when  it  was  to  be  done  was 
the  first  day  of  the  week  ;  5th,  the  place  where  it  was 
to  be  done  was  wherever  the  disciples  should  meet  for 
worship  on  that  day  ;  6th,  the  object  of  the  institu- 
tion  was  to  show  the  Lord's  death,  and  point  to  his 
11 


162       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 

second  coming;  7tli,  ,it  was  to  continue  until  the 
Lord's  second  coming. 

You  perceive  that  in  this  institution,  the  seven 
points  connected  with  the  commemorative  institutions 
established  under  the  old  dispensation  are  all  to  be 
found.  I  do  not  stop  here  to  draw  close  lines  of  dis- 
tinction in  my  use  of  language,  as  to  whether  the 
bread  and  wine  is  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  the  Commun- 
ion ;  for  that  is  the  point  yet  to  be  discussed.  I  have 
called  this  the  Lord's  Supper  because  it  comes  natural 
and  convenient  to  do  so  ;  because  I  am  accustomed 
to  do  so  ;  and  I  propose  to  prove  that  our  custom  in 
this  respect  is  correct — founded  upon  the  Word  of 
God,  and  sustained  by  the  divine  testimony.  Since 
it  will  be  so  convenient  for  me  to  use  this  term,  ''the 
Lord's  Supper,"  when  referring  to  the  bread  and  wine 
which  we  are  in  the  habit  of  calling  by  that  name- 
since  it  will  be  almost  impossible  for  me  to  so  guard 
myself  as  to  avoid  doing  so — I  hope  my  friend  will 
indulcre  me  in  the  use  of  this  term  without  charging 
me  with  begging  the  question,  or  taking  the  matter  in 
dispute  for  granted.  Without  further  preliminary,  I 
will  proceed  to  lay  before  you  as  distinctly  as  I  can 
my  first  argument  in  support  of  the  proposition  that 
the  bread  and  wine  which  are  to  be  taken  by  the  dis- 
ciples of  Christ  in  remembrance  of  him,  constitute  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

My  first  argument  will  be  drawn  from  the  sixth 
chapter  of  Jol»n's  testimony.  Were  it  not  for  con- 
sumin^X  too  much  time,  I  would  be  I'lad  to  read  this 
chapter  here  ;  at  least,  that  portion  from  the  thirtieth  to 
the  fifty-eighth  verse ;  but  I  must  forego  the  pleasure, 
and  the  advaiitafje,  that  would  be  derived  from  such 
reading,  nnd  content  myself  with  referring  to  the  ex- 
pressions bearing  more  particularly  upon  the  argument. 
1  hope,  however,  you  will  all  of  you  take  your  Bibles, 
when   you  reach  your  homes,  such  of  you  as  have 


MR.    m'cOXNELL'S   first    ADDRESS.  163 

them  not  with  you,  and  read  carefully  the  entire  chap- 
ter for  yourselves. 

I  call  your  attention  more  especially  to  the  forty- 
eighth  verse,  where  Jesus  says,  "lam  that  bread  of  life;" 
and  to  the  fifty-first  verse,  where  he  continues,  '*  I  am 
the  living  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven  ;  if  any 
man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  forever;  and  the 
bread  that  I  will  give  is  7nf/ fleshy  which  I  will  give  for 
the  life  of  the  world."  Now,  the  eating  of  bread  is 
a  phrase  used  in  the  Bible,  and  elsewhere,  indicative 
of  partaking  of  a  meal — dinner,  breakfast,  or  supper — • 
bread,  the  most  important  article  of  food,  being  used 
as  a  symbol,  or  representative,  rather,  of  all  food. 
Tlie  eating  of  bread  in  the  evening — the  time  when 
the  disciples  partook  of  the  bread  given  them  by  our 
Saviour — is  called  a  supper.  I  conclude,  therefore, 
that  to  eat  the  bread  of  life  w^hich  came  down  from 
heaven,  of  which  our  Lord  says,  "  I  am  that  bread  of 
life,"  is  to  eat  the  Lord's  supper — the  Lord's  meal, 
prepared  by  him  for  sustaining  the  spiritual  life  of 
those  who  partake  of  it. 

Again  :  In  Matthew,  xxvi :  26,  we  are  told  that, 
Jesus  took  in  his  hands  a  loaf  of  literal  bread,  and 
blessed  it,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  his  disciples, 
saying,  "Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body."  Therefore,  to 
eat  the  bread  of  the  communion  is  to  eat  the  body  of 
Christ,  the  bread  that  came  down  from  heaven  ;  and 
therefore,  to  eat  the  Lord's  supper. 

Again :  Christ  says  (John  vi :  55),  "  My  flesh  is 
meat  indeed  ;"  is  food  indeed ;  meat,  another  impor- 
tant article  of  food,  being  here  used  to  represent  food 
in  general.  But  the  loaf  is  said  by  Christ  to  be  his 
body ;  therefore,  to  eat  the  loaf  is  to  eat  Christ's  flesh  ; 
and  therefore,  to  eat  the  bread  of  life,  presented  to 
us  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Again  :  Christ  says,  in  this  same  chapter  and  verse 
last  mentioned  (John,  vi :  55),  "  My  blood  is  drink  iu- 


164       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD's  SUPPER. 

deed."  In  Matthew,  xxvi  :  28,  he  says,  concerning 
the  cup,  the  wine,  '"  This  is  my  blood  of  the  new  tes- 
tament." Now  we  have  here  the  same  form  of  argu- 
ment previously  presented  :  "  My  blood  is  drink  in- 
deed ;"  and  "  This  is  my  blood  :"  therefore  he  that 
drinketh  of  the  cup,  drinketh  the  blood  of  Christ. 

Again :  Food  and  drink  are  the  essential  elements 
of  a  meal.  And  to  eat  the  bread  which  is  Christ's 
body,  and  to  drink  the  wine  which  is  his  blood,  is  to 
eat  the  supper  or  meal  furnished  us  by  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ ;  and  therefore,  literally,  the  Lord's  supper. 
Whether  a  meal  be  called  breakfast,  dinner  or  supper, 
depends  upon  the  time  of  day,  the  custom  of  the 
country,  etc.  Food  eaten  to  supply  physical  needs  is 
equally  nourishing  Avhether  partaken  at  morning,  noon, 
or  night;  the  time  when  it  is  eaten  does  not  make 
any  difference  in  its  nourishing  qualities  ;  so  we  deem 
that  no  special  meaning  is  attached  to  the  word  "  Sup- 
per," in  this  instance. 

Now  this  first  argument — one  argument  with  four 
members,  if  you  please — is  substantially  before  you. 
But  I  want  to  spend  a  few  moments  in  elucidating 
one  or  two  points  connected  with  the  matter  a  little 
more  fully. 

I  am  well  aware  of  the  strong  prejudice  that  exists 
in  all  Protestant  communities  against  using  the  strong 
and  pointed  language  of  the  Saviour,  in  reference  to 
this  matter:  ^^  This  is  my  body:"  ^^  This  is  my 
blood."  A  man  who  dwells  too  strongly  upon  this 
language  of  our  Saviour  is  apt  to  be  looked  upon  with 
fear  and  distrust  by  Protestants  generally.  Then  let 
mo  say  that  we  understand  this  language  to  be  s^'^ra- 
bolical ;  we  do  not  look  upon  the  bread  and  wine  used 
in  the  communion  as  being  literal  flesh  and  literal 
blood.  We  are  not  advocates  of  transubstantiation  ; 
and  if  we  understand  the  meaning  of  the  term  consub- 
stantiation,  we  do  not  indorse  that,  either.     The  in- 


MR.  m'cONNKLI/s    FlUST    ADDRKSS.  1G5 

stitution  under  consideration,  whether  cnlled  the  Lord's 
Supper  or  the  Communion,  is  a  syniholical  commem- 
orative institution.  The  hinecuatxe  used  in  institutinoj 
it  is  evidently  to  be  understood  in  tlie  same  manner 
as  that  in  John,  vi :  55  :  "  My  flesh  is  meat  indeed, 
and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed."  I  do  not  deem  that 
he  intended  to  teach  the  disciples  that  they  must  eat 
his  literal  flesh,  and  drink  his  literal  blood,  in  order 
to  have  everlasting  life.  I  understood  that  he  referred 
to  his  flesh  and  blood,  not  as  literal  food,  but  as  sym- 
bols of  spiritual  food,  which  should  minister  to  our 
spiritual  life.  This  is  beautifully  and  forcibly  taught 
by  the  Saviour  himself,  in  the  sixty-third  verse  of  this 
same  sixth  chapter  of  John  :  "  It  is  the  spirit  that 
quickeneth  ;  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing." 

My  second  argument  in  support  of  the  proposition 
that  the  bread  and  wine  which  are  to  be  taken  by  the 
disciples  of  Christ  in  remembrance  of  him  constitute 
the  Lord's  Supper,  will  be  drawn  from  the  passage  I 
read  to  you  in  commencing  my  remarks,  from  the  elev- 
enth chapter  of  I  Corinthians.  My  unexpired  time 
■will  allow  me  now  to  refer  to  only  a  few  points  in 
this  connection.  And  I  shall  preface  the  argument 
by  a  few  remarks,  by  way  of  introduction,  suggested  by 
the  second  verse  of  this  chapter  :  "Now  I  praise  you, 
brethren,  that  you  remember  me  in  all  things,  and 
keep  the  ordinances,  as  I  delivered  them  to  you." 
The  word  "  ordinance,"  according  to  Webster,  is  '•  a 
rule  established  by  authority  ;"  ''  a  law  or  statute  of 
sovereign  power  ;"  "  a  decree  ;"  "  an  edict ;"  "  a  re- 
script;" "an  observance  commanded;"  "an  estab- 
lished rite  or  ceremony  ;"  and  quite  a  lengthened  ex- 
planation, and  a  number  of  examples,  are  furnished. 
The  last  two  definitions  I  have  quoted  come  nearest 
to  expressing  the  meaning  attached  to  the  word  in 
Scripture,  where  it  seems  to  have  a  somewhat  techni- 
cal meaning — a  sentiment  of  sacredness   connected 


166       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD's  SUPPER. 

with  it,  which  elsewhere  does  not  obtain.  The  apostle, 
speaking  in  general  terms  to  the  Corinthian  brethren, 
praises  them  for  having  kept  the  ordinances — the  rites 
and  observances  commanded  by  our  Lord.  But 
thou^i  in  general  they  had  been  obedient,  and  kept 
the  ordinances  as  he  had  delivered  them,  yet  the 
apostle  could  not  praise  them  in  terms  of  unqualified 
commendation.  First,  he  settles  what  seems  to  have 
been  a  disputed  point  among  them,  by  deciding  that 
a  man  should  prophesy  or  pray  with  his  head  uncov- 
ered ;  while  a  woman,  while  prophesying  or  praying, 
should  have  her  head  covered.  Coming  to  the  seven- 
teenth verse,  we  find  that  there  is  another  point  upon 
which  —  notwithstanding  his  commendation  of  their 
general  course  of  conduct — the  apostle  is  obliged  to 
say,  "  In  this  I  praise  you  not.''^     \_Time  expired. 


[MR.  QUINTER'S  FIRST  ADDRESS.] 

Friendly  Moderators — I  am  pleased  to  appear  be- 
fore you  again  with  my  friend,  in  the  investigation  of 
the  subjects  that  are  at  issue  between  us. 

The  question  before  us  this  morning  is  in  reference 
to  what  constitutes  the  Lord's  Supper.  I  agree  with 
much  that  my  friend  has  said  thus  far  upon  the  sub- 
ject; in  his  first  argument  especially  I  see  little  to 
which  I  wouUl  feel  like  taking  any  exceptions.  In  this 
first  speech  of  his,  then,  I  find  but  little  to  reply  to.  I 
hope  that  he  does  not  so  far  misunderstand  us,  and 
that  none  of  you  so  misunderstand  us,  as  to  suppose 
that  ive  do  not  consider  the  bread  and  wine  to  be 
symbols  of  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord.  Nor  is 
there  any  dispute  between  us  as  to  the  importance 
of  the  symbols  expressive  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ ;  upon  that  we  are  agreed.  Our  point  of  dis- 
agreement is  in  regard  to  the  name  that  should  properly 


MR.    QUINTKll's    FIK.ST    ADDRESS.  1G7 

be  ;ip])lie(l  to  tlicin.  He  calls  the  partaking  of  them, 
the  Lord's  Supper  ;  while  I  can  not,  according  to  my 
understanding  of  the  Scriptures,  accept  of  thiit  term 
as  expressive  of  those  symbols.  But,  as  I  have  already 
said,  so  far  as  he  has  yet  presented  his  subject,  I  see 
notliing  in  particular  to  except  to,  or  to  take  hold  of; 
so  I  will  proceed  with  the  arguments  upon  my  own 
side  of  the  subject;  and  will  attend  to  his  as  he  may 
from  time  to  time  present  them. 

Introductory  to  any  direct  argument  upon  the  sub- 
ject, I  will  present  some  general  observations. 

The  Christian  religion  is  adapted  to  meet  all  the 
wants  of  humanit}'-,  and  to  restore  it  to  all  that  it  was 
before  the  fall.  It  is  said  of  Christ,  its  Author,  that 
*'  he  needed  not  that  any  should  testify  to  him  of  man, 
for  he  knew  what  was  in  man."  He  knew  what  was 
man's  character  and  capacities  for  enjoyment  when  in 
possession  of  all  his  original  powers,  and  when  occu- 
pying the  garden  of  Eden  into  wdiicli  he  had  been 
placed  by  his  Maker.  He  knew  also  his  wretchedness 
and  degradation  when  driven  from  his  beautiful  home 
in  Eden,  and  compelled  to  wander  an  exile  through 
the  world  over  which  he  was  originally  designed  to 
have  universal  dominion. 

In  the  fall,  man  lost  his  capacity  for  happiness,  and 
he  also  became  separated  from  the  sources  which  alone 
could  satisfy  his  desires  and  capacities  for  happiness. 
In  his  regenerated  state,  with  the  new  heart  that  is 
given  to  him,  his  capacities  are  restored  to  their 
original  state,  and  in  the  consummation  or  completion 
of  his  redemption,  all  the  sources  of  enjoyment  that 
were  ever  designed  to  afford  him  happiness  will  be 
made  available  to  him. 

In  becoming  a  citizen  of  heaven  and  a  member  of 
the  church  of  Christ,  the  believer  already  in  this  life 
greatly  improves  his  condition  and  multiplies  his  com- 
forts.    The  relation  that  Christians  are  brought  into 


168        DEBATE  ON  THE  LOKD's  SUPPER. 

to  one  another  when  they  enter  a  Christian  community, 
is  that  of  a  family.  Man  was  created  a  social  being ; 
and  the  proper  exercise  of  his  social  feelings,  when 
these  are  in  a  healthy  state,  is  a  fruitful  source  of  en- 
joyment. We  are  related  to  God,  and  also  to  one 
another.  "  One  is  your  master,  even  Christ ;  and  all 
ye  are  brethren"  (Matthew,  xxiii :  8).  In  our  church 
relation  to  God  and  to  one  another,  we  have  commun- 
ion with  him  through  Christ,  and  also  with  one  another. 
Our  communion  with  Christ,  as  the  great  Head  of  the 
church,  from  whom  all  our  spiritual  life  is  derived,  is 
both  promoted  and  publicly  shown  by  a  partaking  of 
the  bread  and  wine,  the  symbols  of  his  body  and  blood. 
And  our  brotherly  communion  with  one  another  is 
represented  by  the  meal  they  ate  together,  which  was 
at  times  called  a  ''  love-feast,"  or  "feast  of  charity." 

In  all  ages  of  the  world,  and  among  all  nations, 
eating,  drinking,  and  hospitality,  have  been  connected 
with  religious  observance;  while  the  meeting  of 
friends,  the  enjoyments  of  the  palate  and  the  exercise 
of  the  devotional  affections,  would  conspire  to  make  a 
festive  holiday.  The  word  "  festival  "  comes  from  the 
'French  fete,  which  is  an  abbreviated  form  of  the  Latin 
festum — '•^ festus  dies"  a  holy  day  or  holiday.  In  the 
Greek  we  find  estian,  the  original  oi  fesium ;  and  cstian 
itself  is  from  the  noun  estia  (Latin  vesta),  "  a  hearth  ;" 
so  that  the  root  idea  of  the  word  is  to  be  found  in  what 
we  would  term  the  pleasures  of  the  table — the  exer- 
cise of  hospitality. 

In  the  patriarchal  age  of  the  world,  feasts  of  various 
kinds  were  very  common,  as  a  reference  to  a  history 
of  that  time  will  plainly  show.  Aud  when  we  come  to 
the  time  of  Jewish  history,  we  find  quite  a  number  of 
feasts  e'stab|ished  by  divine  authoiity  in  the  system  of 
religion  ordained  by  God  for  the  benefit  of  the  Jewish 
nation,  until  the  dispensation  of  Christ  should  come. 
And  from  the  fact  that  various  religious  feasts  >Yere 


MR.    QUINTEU'S    I'IKST    ADDRESS.  1G9 

given  tlie  Jews  by  the  Lord,  we  may  infer  that  tliore 
was  soTnetliiiif];  in  their  nature  and  tendency  which 
wouhl  so  operate  upon  human  cliaracter  as  to  render 
tlvem  an  auxiliary'  to  the  general  system  of  religion 
of  which  tliey  were  a  part,  and  wliich  was  designed  to 
improve  man's  character  by  cultivating  and  developing 
his  social  and  benevolent  feelings. 

While  I  shall  give  the  necessary  attention  to  the 
arguments  offered  by  my  opponent  on  the  affirmative  of 
the  proposition  now  in  debate,  I  shall  show — 

I.  That  tJce  aposfoJic  church  had  in  connection  ivith 
the  symbols  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  a  meal  or 
supper. 

II.  That  the  meal  or  supper  that  was  eaten,  and  not 
the  bread  and  wine,  ivas  the  Lord^s  Supper. 

I.  That  the  apostolic  church  had  a  meal,  in  connection 
with  the  bread  and  wine,  will  appear  from  the  follow- 
ing considerations  : 

1.  It  is  evident  from  I  Corinthians,  xi :  20,  21,  a 
portion  of  the  Scripture  already  read  by  my  opponent, 
that  there  was  provision  brought  to  the  place  of  meet- 
ing to  constitute  a  meal.  It  is  here  said  "When  ye 
come  together  therefore  into  one  place,  this  is  not  to 
eat  the  Lord's  Supi)er.  For  in  eating,  every  one 
taketh  before  other  his  own  supper  :  and  one  is  hungry, 
and  another  is  drunken." 

Now,  the  point  we  make  here  is  this  :  If  only  the 
symbols  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  that  is,  only 
the  bread  and  wine,  and  that,  too,  in  such  quantities 
as  are  usually  and  properly  taken,,  it  would  by  no 
means  have  been  necessary  for  several  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  church  to  have  brought  provision,  or  bread 
and  wine,  since  one  member  could  readily  have 
brought  enough  to  furnish  a  large  number  of  com- 
municants with  bread  and  wine,  as  each  member  takes 
but  a  small  piece  of  bread  and  only  a  sip  of  wine.  But 
it  appears  that  several  of  the  members  of  the  church 


170       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD's  SUPPER. 

brought  suppers  along  with  them,  which,  when  pre- 
pared properly,  when  brought  together,  when  all  things 
were  in  proper  order,  were  to  constitute  one  gen- 
eral meal,  the  Lord's  Supper.  Therefore  the  Lord's 
Supper  must  have  consisted  of  a  meal,  and  not  of  a 
little  bread  and  wine  only. 

2.  My  second  argument  in  proof  of  the  position  that 
the  apostolic  church  partook  of  a  meal,  and  not  merely 
of  the  bread  and  wine — the  symbols  of  our  Lord's  body 
and  blood — is  derived  from  the  consideration  that  they 
received  the  'provisions  they  partook,  from  a  table. 
It  is  said,  I  Corinthians,  x :  21,  "  Ye  can  not  be  par- 
takers of  the  Lord's  table  and  of  the  table  of  devils.'* 
Now,  the  Lord's  table  was  that  from  which  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  received  by  the  Christians  at 
Corinth.  Then,  as  a  table  was  necessary  in  eating  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  as  the  Christians  at  Corinth  re- 
ceived what  they  ate  from  a  table,  it  is  evident  that 
they  ate  a  meal ;  for  in  those  churches  which  call  the 
bread  and  wine  only  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  members 
do  not  sit  at  a  table,  nor  receive  the  bread  and  wine  from 
a  table ;  but  usually  sit  on  the  ordinary  seats  in  the 
house  of  worship,  and  receive  the  bread  and  wine 
which  they  partake  of  from  a  plate  and  cup.  Where 
there  is  nothing  except  the  bread  and  wine,  no  table 
seems  necessary,  and  hence  none  is  prepared  on  those 
oceasions.  Hence,  there  is  evidently  a  difference  be- 
tween the  manner  in  which  the  modern  churches  take 
the  Lord's  Supper,  when  they  do  not  receive  it  from 
a  table,  and  the  church  at  Corinth,  which  did  re- 
ceive it  from  a  table.  The  difference  is  this  :  The 
church  at  Corinth  had  a  meal  while  our  modern  churches 
have  no  meal ;  hence  they  are  not  apostolic  in  their  man- 
ner of  worshiping.  We  argue  that  the  apostolic  church 
immersed  in  administering  baptism,  because  they  went 
into  the  water  to  baptize — since  tliere  would  have  becix 


MR.    QlIXTKH\s    FIRST   ADDRESS.  171 

no  necessity  of  goinpr  into  the  water  to  sprinkle.  So 
■\ve  ari:;uo  that  a  tahlc  ijiiplies  a  meiil — for  liad  there 
been  no  nienl,  no  tabh^  woukl  have  been  necessary. 

3.  My  third  argument  in  jrroof  of  7ni/ position  that 
there  was  a  meal  eaten  by  the  Chridians  of  the  apostolic 
churchy  is  derived  from  the  distinction  the  apostle 
makes  between  the  table  and  the  cup.  He  says  (I  Corin- 
thians, X :  21) :  "  Ye  can  not  drink  of  the  cup  of  the 
Lord  and  the  cup  of  devils  ;  ye  can  not  be  partakers 
of  the  Lord's  table,  and  of  the  table  of  devils."  Now,  as 
there  is  a  distinction  made  here  between  the  cup  and 
the  table,  how  can  we  account  for  it  in  any  way  so 
satisfjictorily  as  to  understand  the  cup  to  represent  here 
both  the  bread  and  wine,  as  we  understand  the  bread 
to  imply  the  cup  where  it  is  said  (Acts,  xx  :  7) :  "  The 
disciples  came  together  to  break  bread."  As  the  bread 
and  wine  were  instituted  at  the  same  time,  and  were 
designed  always  to  accompany  each  other,  when  one  is 
mentioned  the  other  is  always  implied.  Then,  as  the 
cup  named  by  the  apostle  means  the  symbols  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  the  table  upon  which  the 
supper  was  spread  must  mean  the  Lord's  Supper;  and 
so  we  have  both  a  supper  and  the  symbols  of  Christ's 
body  and  blood  recognized  by  the  apostle  Paul,  in  the 
language  we  are  now  considering.  This  is  the  view 
which  has  struck  me  as  being  most  natural  and  appro- 
priate. If  there  is  any  better  explanation,  we  shall 
hear  it,  I  hope,  on  this  occasion. 

4.  My  fourth  argument  in  support  of  my  position 
that  there  was  a  meal  eaten  as  a  religious  feast  in  the 
apostolic  churchy  and  not  merely  the  bread  anji  tvine,  is 
derived  from  the  language  of  Jude  and  Peter.  Jude 
says  (verse  12):  "These  are  spots  in  your  feasts  of 
charity,  when  they  feast  with  you,  feeding  themselves 
without  fear  :  clouds  they  are  without  water,  carried 
about  of  winds ;  trees  whose  fruit  withereth,  without 


172        DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD's  SUPPER. 

fruit,  twice  dend,  plucked  up  by  the  roots."  Peter 
says  (II  Peter, ii :  14):  ""Spots  they  are,  and  blemishes, 
sporting  themselves  with  their  own  deceivings,  while 
they  feast  with  you."  It  is  evident  from  this  language, 
especially  that  of  the  apostle  Jude,  that  reference  is 
here  made  to  a  meal,  and  not  to  the  partaking  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ.  I  believe  that  no  commen- 
tator has  ever  endeavored  to  explain  the  passage  in 
Jude  as  referrintr  to  the  church  at  that  time  eatin"!;  the 
symbols  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  The  text 
shows  most  conclusively  that  the  church  at  that  time 
had  a  feast;  they  had  an  eating;  different  from,  dis- 
tinct from,  separate  from,  the  eating  of  the  symbols  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord.  Remember,  there  is 
no  loop-hole  of  escape  here  by  claiming  that  this  was 
an  unauthorized  custom  in  an  apostatized  church;  this 
is  not  amid  the  accumulated  superstitions  of  after  ages  ; 
it  is  yet  in  the  apostolic  age  ;  at  the  very  head  of  the 
stream;  the  fountain  of  unadulterated  Christianity. 
It  is  true,  abuses  are  spoken  of,  and  censured,  in 
connection  with  these  feasts  ;  it  is  true  the  apostles 
reprove  those  abuses  ;  but  the  feasts  themselves  are 
recognized  as  ordinances  of  the  church.  We  want  it 
definitely  understood,  then,  that  both  Jude  and  Peter, 
in  addition  to  the  apostle  Paul,  recognize  a  feast,  a 
meal,  in  connection  with  the  ordinances,  the  established 
usages,  of  the  church.  If  this  feast  was  constituted 
of  the  bread  and  wine  alone,  the  symbols  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  our  Saviour,  my  friend  here  will  no  doubt 
make  the  matter  all  plain  and  clear,  for  he  has  given 
extensive  attention  to  this  matter,  and  has  thoroughly 
investigated  the  points  at  issue  between  us  on  this  oc- 
casion. 

5.  Mij  fifth  argument  to  prove  that  the  apostolic 
church  had  a  meal  which  ?m.s'  eaten  as  a  relir/ious  feast, 
in  addition  to  the  bread  and  wi)te  which  was  taken  as 
the  sijnibols  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  is  derived 


MR.    QUINTER's    first    ADDRESS.  173 

from  writers  of  cUsfuicfioii,  such  as  commenfafors  and 
Iddorians. 

Jeukyn,  in  his  exposition  of  Jude,  verse  12,  says  : 
"  The  institution  of  these  love-feasts  was  founded  on 
the  custom  of  the  church,  which  immediately  before  the 
celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  used  to  have  a  feast, 
to  testify,  continue,  and  increase  brotherly  love  among 
themselves  ;  as  also  to  the  poor,  who  hereby  were  re- 
lieved ;  whence  they  had  their  name  agapce,  '  chari- 
ties ;'  as  if  they  were  so  intended  for  love  that  there 
could  not  be  so  fit  a  name  by  which  to  call  them  as 
love  itself.  Of  these  feasts  speaks  the  apostle,  when 
he  saith  that,  '  every  one  taketh  before  other  his  own 
supper,'  I  Corinthians,  xi :  21 ;  as  also  II  Peter,  ii :  13  ; 
where  he  speaks  concerning  the  feasting  of  these 
seducers  with  the  Christians;  and  frequent  mention 
is  made  of  these  feasts  among  the  ancients.  „ 

Waddington,  in  his  "  History  of  the  Church,"  page  27, 
says:  "The  celebration  of  the  sacrament  of  the  eu- 
charist  was  originally  accompanied  by  meetings  which 
partook  somewhat  of  a  hospitable,  or  at  least  of  a 
charitable  character,  and  were  called  agapce,  or  Feasts 
of  Love.  Every  Chi-istian,  according  to  his  circum- 
stances, brought  to  the  assembly  portions  of  bread, 
vine,  and  other  things,  as  gifts,  as  it  were,  or  obla- 
tions to  the  Lord.  Of  the  bread  and  wine,  such  as  was 
required  for  the  administration  of  the  sacrament  was 
separated  from  the  rest,  and  consecrated  by  the  bishop 
alone  ;  its  distribution  was  followed  by  a  frugal  and  seri- 
ous repast.  Undoubtedly^  those  assemblies  acted  not 
only  as  excitements  to  ardent  piety,  but  also  as  bonds  of 
strict  religious  union  and  mutual  devotion,  during  the 
dark  days  of  terror  and  persecution.  It  was  probably 
on  those  occasions,  more  than  any  other,  that  the  suf- 
ferers rallied  their  scattered  ranks,  and  encouraged 
each  other,  by  one  solemn  act  of  brotherly  communion, 
to  constancy  in  one  faith,  and  association  in  the  same 


174        DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD\s  SUFFER. 

affliction.  We  observe,  moreover,  that  as  the  dangers 
passed  away  from  the  church,  the  more  social  forra 
(if  Ave  may  so  express  it)  of  eucharistical  administra- 
tion gradually  fell  into  disuse." 

Alas,  my  friends  !  Danger  has  not  yet  passed  away 
from  the  church  ;  persecution  has  only  changed  its 
manner  of  attack.  When  I  read  of  those  feasts  of 
brotherly  love,  which  the  historian  so  beautifully 
alludes  to,  where  the  disciples  rallied  their  forces, 
renewed  their  strength,  and  presented  an  unbroken 
phalanx  to  the  foe — I  wish  we  had  them  yet.  We  are 
scattered,  and  separated,  and  broken ;  we  need  them 
still.     \_Time  expired. 


[MR.  McCONNELL'S  SECOND  ADDRESS.] 

Gentlemen  Moderators — My  friend  comes  up  to 
the  examination  of  the  question  under  debate  in  good 
earnest,  this  morning,  and  I  am  pleased  to  see  it.  I 
want  a  thorough  examination  of  the  subject,  as  thor- 
ough as  we  are  capable  of  giving  it.  He  has  told  you 
that  he  finds  little  to  take  exceptions  to  in  my  first 
argument,  thereby  acknowledging  the  positions  I  as- 
sumed therein  to  be  correct,  in  the  main.  We  agree 
upon  the  bread  and  wine  being  the  s^Mubols  of  Christ's 
body  and  blood.  So  far,  then,  there  is  no  dispute  be- 
tween us. 

My  friend  introduced  his  argument  by  laying  down 
a  general  proposition,  which  I  am  not  prepared  to  en- 
tirely accept.  He  says  the  Christian  religion  is 
adapted  to  meet  all  the  wants  of  man — his  physical 
and  social,  as  well  as  his  moral  and  spiritual,  needs. 
But  Paul  says,  in  his  letter  to  the  Romans,  xiv  :  17: 
''The  kingdom  of  God  is  not  meat  and  drink,  but 
righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Spirit." 


MR.   m'cONNELI/s    second    ADDRESS.  175 

God,  in  the  kingdom  of  nature,  has  made  provision 
for  man's  pliy^icul  needs  ;  while  in  the  Gospel  he  has 
provided  for  our  spiriruul  necessities ;  and.  in  his 
everlasting  kingdom,  which  we  bj  and  by  sliall  enter, 
^\e  will  find  that  provision  has  been  made  for  the 
spirit's  needs  in  that  immortal  life.  I  am  not  willing, 
then,  to  indorse  my  friend's  statement  as  a  universal 
proposition. 

My  friend  says:  "Our  communion  "with  Christ  is 
represented  by  partaking  of  the  symbols  of  his  body 
and  blood — the  bread  and  wine;  our  communion  with 
each  other  by  a  meal  or  love-feast."  That,  perad- 
venture,  is  true;  we  do  not  particularly  object  to  it. 
But  ordinary  unions  are  represented  by  ordinary 
means,  extraordinary  unions  by  extraordinary  means. 
A  n]eal  composed  of  bread,  and  meat,  and  soups,  and 
drinks,  is  a  common  meal.  Association  at  that  com- 
mon meal  expresses  only  common  relationships,  com- 
mon friendships,  common  unions.  Our  union  with 
Jesus  Christ,  and  our  union  with  each  other  as  mem- 
bers of  Christ's  body,  is  an  extraordinary  union,  and 
requires  extraordinary  means  to  signify  and  express 
the  relations  of  that  union.  Hence,  we  have  this 
extraordinary  supper,  composed  of  ordinary  elements, 
bread  and  wine,  but  which  are  used  as  symbols 
of  the  extraordinary  spiritual  union  which  exists  be- 
tween the  members  of  Christ's  church  as  one  bread, 
one  body;  and  also  expressive  of  our  union  with 
Christ,  and  of  the  cause  of  that  union,  which  is 
Christ's  death.  A  meal,  a  supper,  like  this,  is  appro- 
priate to  express  this  extraordinary  relation,  extraor- 
dinary union ;  and,  for  that  reason,  may  properly  be 
called  the  Lord's  Supper. 

I  will  call  attention  to  my  friencl's  first  argument  in 
favor  of  an  additional  meal,  to  constitute  tlie  Lord's 
Supper,  in  connection  with  the  bread  and  wine.  His 
ai-^ument  is  based  unon  Paul's  first  letter  to  the  Cor- 


176  DEBATE    ON   THE    LORD's    SUPPER. 

intliians,  xi :  20,  21.  ''  When  ye  come  together,  there- 
fore, into  one  place,"  says  Paul,  "this  is  not  to  eat  the 
Lord's  Supper."  Now,  let  us  see  why  not.  Because, 
"in  eating,  every  one  taketh  before  other  his  own 
supper  :  and  one  is  hungry,  and  another  is  drunken." 
Tliis  is  just  what  we  are  contending  for.  Instead  of 
bringing  the  elements,  bread  and  wine,  and  partaking 
of  them,  not  to  satisfy  bodily  hunger,  but  reverentially, 
as  representing  their  union  with  the  church  and  with 
Christ,  they  brought  victuals  for  a  common  meal,  and 
ate  it  like  a  common  meal,  and  some  gormandized, 
and  some  got  drunk.  Well  might  the  apostle  say, 
this  is  not  to  eat  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Well,  let  us  next  inquire  of  Paul,  "  What  is  the 
Lord's  Supper?"  Paul  tells  us:  "I  have  received  of 
the  Lord  that  which  I  delivered  unto  you;"  namely, 
"That  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  same  night  in  which  he 
was  betrayed,  took  bread;  and  when  he  had  given 
thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said.  Take,  eat ;  this  is  my 
body  which  is  broken  for  you;  this  do  in  remembrance 
of  me."  Thus  the  apostle  sets  forth  precisely  what 
constitute*!  the  supper  that  was  to  be  eaten  in  memory 
of  Ulirist's  death.  So  much  for  the  bread.  Then, 
"  After  the  same  manner  also  he  took  the  cup,  when 
he  had  supped,  saying.  This  cup  is  the  new  testa- 
ment in  my  blood ;  this  do  ye,  as  often  as  ye  drink  it, 
in  remembrance  of  me." 

Now,  what  is  it  that  we  are  to  do  to  represent  our 
Lord's  death,  and  our  union  with  him  tlirou2;li  his 
death?  As  if  to  settle  this  question  forever,  beyond 
the  possibility  of  all  cavil  and  controversy,  the  apostle 
clutches  the  whole  argument  with  the  assertion,  utterly 
fatal  to  the  idea  tlni^  it  requires  anything  besides  the 
bread  and  wine  to  constitute  the  Lord's  Supper  :  '*  For 
as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do 
show  the  Lord's  death,  till  he  come."  llavinir  tirst 
shown  what  is  not  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  apostle  fol- 


MR.    M'CONNELL'S    SECOND    ADDRESS.  177 

lows  by  shoAving,  in  contrast  tlicrcwith,  what  is  the 
Lord's  Supper,  settling  the  question  beyond  the  possi- 
bility of  a  doubt  in  the  minds  of  all  men  who  accept 
the  Word  of  God  as  authority  in  the  case.  I  feel  that 
here  I  might,  with  safety,  sit  down,  and  leave  the  issue 
with  the  world  at  large,  on  the  argument  that  is  before 
you  now. 

All  my  friend's  arguments,  so  far,  have  been  de- 
signed to  prove  that  these  Corinthians  had  a  common 
meal,  an  ordinary  supper.  The  fact  that  they  had  a 
table,  he  brings  up  in  support  of  this  position;  and 
other  arguments  to  the  same  effect.  He  might  have 
spared  himself  all  that  trouble.  We  willingly  ac- 
knowledge that,  at  the  outset.  They  brought  a  quan- 
tity of  ordinary  provisions,  sufficient  to  constitute  an 
ordinary  meal,  and,  like  our  Tonker  friends,  they  ate 
this  common  food,  like  any  common  meal,  to  satisfy 
common  hunger.  All  this  we  acknowledge,  willingly. 
But  the  trouble  with  the  argument  is  ri^ii-ht  here  :  we 
say,  and  the  apostle  says,  "  This  is  not  to  eat  the  Lord's 
Supper^  And  he  became  astonished  and  indignant 
at  this  unchristian  practice,  and  exclaimed,  "  Have  ye 
not  houses  to  eat  and  to  drink  in  ?  or  despise  ye  the 
church  of  God,"  that  ye  come  there  to  eat  and  drink? 
**  If  any  man  hunger^''  continues  the  apostle,  "  let  him 
eat  at  homeJ' 

But  my  friend  will  try  to  evade  the  point  at  issue 
by  claiming  that,  although  Christ  did  command  his 
disciples  to  eat  the  bread  and  drink  the  wine  as  sym- 
bols of  his  flesh  and  blood,  still,  this  is  not  the  com- 
munion. But  the  apostle  settles  this  point  just  as 
conclusively.  Turn  to  I  Corinthians,  x:  16:  ''The 
cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  commun- 
ion of  the  blood  of  Christ?  The  bread  whi«h  -we 
break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ? 
(Verse  17:)  For  we,  being  many,  are  one  bread,  and 
one  body." 
12 


178       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD'S  SUPBER. 

But  now  my  friend  comes  up,  with  an  air  of  great 
triumph,  and  proposes  to  take  away  all  the  effect  of 
this  question  of  the  apostles,  which  has  all  the  force 
of  a  positive  assertion,  by  showing — what?  Why, 
that  a  table  is  noticed  in  this  connection.  Let  us  turn 
to  the  passage,  and  examine  it  a  little.  I  Cor.,  x  :  19, 
20,  21 :  "  What  say  I  then?  that  the  idol  is  anything, 
or  that  which  is  offered  in  sacrifice  to  idols  is  any- 
thing ?  But  I  say,  that  the  things  which  the  Gentiles 
sacrifice,  they  sacrifice  to  devils,  and  not  to  God  :  and 
I  would  not  that  ye  should  have  fellowship  with  devils. 
Ye  can  not  drink  the  cup  of  the  Lord,  and  the  cup  of 
devils  :  ye  can  not  be  partakers  of  the  Lord's  tahle^ 
and  of  the  table  of  devils.'' 

Now,  my  friend  says  the  use  of  a  table  is  clear  evi- 
dence of  a  separate  meal  or  supper,  aside  from  the 
eating  of  the  bread  and  wine.  I  supposed  that  we 
had  made  that  clear  before.  The  bread  and  wine  are 
associated  with  the  idea  of  a  table,  and  a  supper  or 
meal  is  associated  with  the  idea  of  a  table.  There  is 
a  figure  in  grammar  called  synecdoche^  whereby  a  part 
is  used  to  express  the  whole,  or  that  which  usually  be- 
longs with  a  thing  is  named  instead  of  the  thing 
itself;  for  instance,  we  speak  of  a  dozen  sails  in  the 
harbor,  or  a  hundred  liead  of  cattle,  when  we  mean 
the  cattle  themselves,  or  the  ships  to  which  the  sails 
belong.  In  the  same  way,  we  speak  of  "  the  pleasures 
of  the  table,"  when  we  mean  the  pleasures  that  are 
gained  from  eating  such  things  as  usually  belong  on 
the  table.  In  precisely  this  way  we  understand  the 
expression  here,  "Ye  can  not  be  partakers  of  the 
Lord's  table  and  of  the  table  of  devils."  Here  is  the 
syllogism,  as  propounded  by  my  friend,  and  certainly 
a  straufje  one  it  is  :  '"  Modern  Christians  do  not  take 
the  emblems  from  the  table.  A  table  was  anciently 
associated  with  the  emblems;  therefore,  the  comniun- 
iou  is  not  the  Lord's  Supper."     Then,  1  suppose,  if 


MR.    m'cONNELL'S    SKCOND    ADDRESS.  179 

the  bread  and  wine  wore  eaten  from  a  table,  that  would 
convert  it  into  the  Lord's  Supper.  In  my  younger 
days,  I  remember  once  seeing  tlie  Presbyterians  par- 
take of  the  communion  while  sitting  at  a  table.  Ac- 
cording to  my  friend's  mode  of  arguing,  tltat  made  it 
the  Lord's  Supper ! 

My  friend  has  made  the  assertion  that,  wherever 
the  bread  is  mentioned,  the  cup  or  wine  is  always  un- 
derstood;  as  in  Acts,  xx :  7,  where  "the  disciples 
came  together  to  break  bread/'  and  the  communion  is 
evidently  referred  to,  although  the  cup  is  not  spoken 
of;  and,  vice  versa^  that  wherever  the  cup  is  men- 
tioned, the  bread  is  inferred,  in  the  same  way.  That 
may  be  true,  but  with  this  qualification :  when  both 
are  spoken  of,  the  mention  of  the  one  does  not  imply 
the  other;  for  the  other  being  mentioned  in  the  same 
connection,  there  is  no  necessity  for  implying  it. 
When  we  plainly  say  a  thing,  there  is  no  need  of  im- 
plying it  in  addition.  The  apostle  here  plainly  says 
both.  He  does  so  for  the  purpose  of  making  his  as- 
sertion emphatic  and  doubly  strong.  He  therefore 
as:?ociates  both  with  the  table;  and  the  table  with 
which  he  thus  associates  them  he  calls  "  the  Lord's 
table."  The  argument  is  complete.  We  challenge 
any  man  to  upset  it  with  logic,  with  Bible,  with  any 
evidence  that  can  be  admitted  in  this  court,  where 
God's  word  is  the  only  ultimate  appeal. 

I  have  a  question  or  two  to  propound  to  my  friend 
at  this  point.  If  the  partaking  of  the  bread  and 
wine,  as  the  symbols  of  our  Lord's  body  and  blood,  in 
the  proper  manner,  and  with  the  proper  purpose  in 
view,  is  not  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  will  my 
friend  be  kind  enough  to  inform  me,  and  this  au- 
dience, what  does  constitute  the  Lord's  Supper,  which 
the  disciples  of  Christ  are  required  to  eat  under  the 
Ciiristian  economy  V 
.    I  will  now  call  your  attention  again,  my  friends,  to 


180       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 

the  sixth  chapter  of  the  testimony  of  John.  After 
Christ  had  declared,  "  I  am  the  bread  of  life,"  and 
added,  "  If  any  man  eat  of  this  bread  he  shall  live 
forever  ;  and  the  bread  that  I  will  give  is  my  fleshy 
which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world :"  the 
Jews  asked  among  themselves,  "  How  can  this  man 
give  us  his  flesh  to  eat?"  A  very  natural,  and  a 
very  important  question.  And  mark  our  Saviour's 
strange  response  :  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink 
his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you.  Whoso  eateth  my 
flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life." 

Now,  no  one  but  a  Papist  wuU  contend  for  a  literal 
eating  of  Christ's  flesh,  and  a  literal  drinking  of  his 
blood.  Then  this  must  refer  to  a  symbolic  or  figur- 
ative eating  and  drinking.  And  what  he  did  here 
mean,  he  clearly  explained  when  he  instituted  the 
communion.  The  bread  and  the  wine  were  the  only 
things  our  Lord  ever  gave  his  disciples  to  eat  in  a  re- 
ligious sense,  the  only  elements  he  ever  commanded 
them  to  take  in  remembrance  of  him.  And  he  said 
of  the  bread,  when  he  gave  it,  "  This  is  my  body  ; " 
and  of  the  wine,  "  This  is  my  blood."  And  in  this 
symbolic  manner,  in  remembrance  of  him,  and  as  a 
type  of  the  spiritual  life  they  derive  from  him,  do  the 
disciples  of  Clirist  eat  his  flesh  and  drink  his  blood, 
as  he  commanded.*  And  the  eating  of  the  bread  and 
the  drinking  of  the  wine,  according  to  the  command 
of  Christ,  and  for  the  purpose  commanded  by  him,  is 
the  most  beautiful,  solemn,  impressive,  commemorative 
institution  ever  established.  It  is  eating  the  bread 
that  came  down  from  heaven,  to  nourish  the  soul,  to 
strengthen  the  spiritual  nature  of  man,  to  confer  upon 
him  immortal  life.  This  meal  is  commanded  by  the 
Lord;  the  elements  constituting  it  are  designated  by 
him  ;  it  is  to  be  eaten  by  his  disciples  in  the  manner 
prescribed  by  liiiii ;  and  it  is  the  onlt/  meal  connected 


MR.    M'cONNELL'S    second    ADDRESS.  181 

with  the  new  dispensation  bearing  the  above  marks  : 
consequently,  it  must  be  the  Lord's  Supper. 

I  have  no  doubt  that  our  Tonker  friends,  when  they 
eat  what  they  call  the  Lord's  Supper,  do  it  in  all  hon- 
esty of  heart,  and  because  they  believe  it  to  have  been 
commanded  by  the  Lord.  But  I  can  not  see  what 
right  a  common  meal,  composed  of  common  food,  and 
eaten  for  the  satisfaction  of  physical  hunger,  can 
claim  to  the  appellation  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  is 
not  emblematic  of  his  body,  nor  of  his  blood ;  there 
is  no  allusion  to  it  at  all,  that  I  can  discover;  it  is 
eaten  in  pursuance  of  no  command  at  all,  that  I  can 
find,  in  the  Word  of  God.  If  there  is  any  such  com- 
mand, we  shall  doubtless  have  it  pointed  out  to  us  by 
my  friend. 

I  know  very  well  that  Jesus  Christ  did  eat  a  supper 
on  the  very  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed;  it  was  at 
the  close  of  this  supper  that  he  gave  the  command  to 
eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup.  I  will  not  dispute 
with  my  friend  upon  that  point  at  all.  But  the  claim 
that  thcit  supper  has  any  right  to  the  distinctive  title 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  I  am  not  ready  to  admit. 

When  the  issue  is  fairly  made  up  on  that  supper,  I 
will  have  something  further  to  say  in  reference  to  it. 
But  the  substance  of  what  I  shall  then  have  to  say,  I 
will  give  you  now,  in  a  single  sentence.  That  is,  that 
supper  was  not  of  Christ's  instituting,  either  by  com- 
mand or  example,  any  more  than  he  instituted  the 
meal  he  ate  at  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper,  in  Beth- 
any, or  any  other  common  meal  he  ate  at  any  private 
house  at  which  he  was  a  guest;  and,  therefore,  that 
can  not,  in  any  proper  sense  of  the  terra,  be  called  the 
Lord's  Supper.     \_Ttme  expired. 


182  DEBATE    ON   THE    LORD's    SUPPER. 

[MR.  QUINTER'S  SECOND  ADDRESS.] 

Friendly  Moderators — The  first  thing  I  shall  do, 
before  proceeding  with  any  further  arguments  in  sup- 
port of  my  own  position  on  this  question,  will  be  to 
examine  the  twentieth  and  twenty-first  verses  of  this 
eleventh  chapter  of  Corinthians,  which  my  friend  has 
interpreted  in  a  manner  which  I  can  not  deem  war- 
ranted by  the  language  and  construction  of  the  pas- 
sage. The  twentieth  verse  says :  "  When  ye  come 
together  therefore  into  one  place,  this  is  not  to  eat 
the  Lord's  supper."  The  translation  of  the  Ameri- 
can Bible  Union  says  :  "  There  is  no  eating  of  the 
supper  of  the  Lord."  In  the  margin  of  our  common 
version  we  find  the  reading,  "  Ye  can  not  eat  the 
Lord's  Supper."  Now,  the  twenty-first  verse  is  con- 
nected with  the  twentieth,  by  the  conjunction  '*  for  '" 
(we  will  get  acquainted  with  these  conjunctions  after 
a  while,  I  hope) ;  ''for"  indicates  the  cause  or  reason 
of  what  has  been  stated  in  the  verse  preceding ;  it 
means  very  often  the  same  as  *  because ;"  so  in  the 
twenty-first  verse  the  apostle  goes  on  to  give  the 
reason  why  their  eating  is  not  eating  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. It  is  not  because  they  brought  too  much  pro- 
vision— enough  for  a  common  meal — there  is  no  ob- 
jection made  on  account  of  that ;  but  the  manner  in 
which  they  eat  is  censured ;  they  are  selfish,  and  they 
are  greedy;  "for,  in  eating,  every  one  taketh  before 
other  his  own  supper  :  and  one  is  hungry,  and  another 
is  drunken."  Your  souls  can  not  be  fed  in  that  way  ; 
the  Lord  will  not  accept  such  a  manner  of  proceeding 
as  the  proper  fulfilling  of  a  divine  ordinance;  the 
Lord  allows  no  confusion  in  his  house  ;  God  is  not  a 
God  of  disorder  and  tumult.  You  ought  to  meet  and 
eat  as  brethren  of  one  family ;  to  '*  tarry  one  for  an- 
other;"  if  you  were  so  hungry  that  you  could  not 
wait  till  all  were  ready  to  partake,  why  did  ye  not  eat 


MR.    QUINTER's    second    ADDRESS.  183 

anfl  drink  at  homo?  ''Have  ye  not  houses  to  eat 
and  drink  in?"  They  were  not  censured  for  eating 
and  drinking,  but  for  eating  and  drinking  so  greedily 
and  selfishly  and  disorderly.  My  friend  says  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  dtfferent  from  a  common  meal ;  the 
house  of  God  is  not  the  place  to  eat  a  common  meal ; 
that  should  be  eaten  at  home.  Bat  does  the  apostle 
say  so  ?  No ;  but  those  who  were  so  hungry  they 
could  not  "  tarry  one  for  another,"  they  ought  to  have 
eaten  enough  at  home  so  they  could  have  waited  for 
their  brethren,  and  not  have  violated  the  dictates  of 
ordinary  decency  and  propriety.  There  is  no  censure 
for  those  who  ate  in  a  respectful  and  orderly  manner. 
Ought  they  to  have  eaten  at  home,  as  my  friend  in- 
sists ?  The  design  for  which  the  meal  was  instituted 
would  never  have  been  answered,  had  they  eaten  at 
home.  The  apostle  continues,  "  Would  ye  shame  them 
that  have  not  houses?"  Where  were  they  going  to 
eat?  This  is  conclusive  proof  that  the  apostle  recog- 
nized a  meal  that  was  to  be  eaten  there ;  the  poor 
were  to  eat  there ;  such  language  would  be  entirely 
inappropriate,  unless  something  more  than  merely  the 
symbols,  the  bread  and  wine,  was  brought.  This  is 
as  clear  as  the  cloudless  sky  above  our  heads  to-d.iy. 
My  friend  talks  a  good  deal  about  "challenging,"  but 
I  want  to  avoifl  that  kind  of  talk,  or  I  might  chal- 
lenge my  friend  to  explain  this  matter.  The  clear 
inference  is,  that  there  was  a  full  meal  of  ordinary 
food;  that  these  were  the  provisions  of  which  the 
Lord's  Supper  were  rightfully  constituted ;  but  that 
in  their  selfishness,  their  greediness,  their  confusion 
and  disorder,  they  did  not  eat  their  meal  in  the  fear  of 
Goil,  the  love  of  Giirist,  the  respect  due  to  one  another 
as  brethren  of  the  Christian  family;  so  the  apostle 
says,  '*  this  is  not  to  eat  the  Lord's  Supper  " — call  it 
your  own  supper,  if  you  choose,  but  it  is  not  the 
Lord's.     My  argument  stands  unanswered ;  a  quan- 


184 

tity  of  food  was  brought,  enough  to  constitute  a  full 
meal,  a  feast ;  and  the  apostle  finds  no  fault  with  that, 
but  only  with  the  greedy,  disorderly,  unchristian  man- 
ner in  which  the  meal  was  conducted. 

The  table  question  came  up  agaiti.  My  friend  tells 
us  that  once,  in  his  younger  days,  he  saw  the  Pres- 
byterians partake  of  the  symbols  from  a  table.  I 
have  often  seen  them  commune  when  they  had  no 
table;  I  presume  they  rarely  commune  from  a  table, 
now-a-days.  My  friend  has  not  told  us  whether  the 
disciples  have  a  table. 

He  wants  me  to  state  what  the  supper  is  composed 
of.  I  do  not  think  he  ought  to  have  asked  that  ques- 
tion. However,  I  am  willing  he  should  ask  what 
questions  he  chooses,  and  I  will  use  my  best  ability 
in  answering;  but  when  he  answers  my  questions,  I 
will  give  his  more  attention.  I  would  ask  him  what 
kind  of  bread  Christ  commanded  his  disciples  to  eat 
in  the  communion? 

I  believe  I  have  now  noticed,  and  I  think  satisfiic- 
torily  answered,  the  general  points  in  my  friend's 
argument;  and  I  will  now  proceed  with  my  own. 

Mosheim,  in  his  commentaries  on  the  affairs  of  the 
Christians  before  the  time  of  Constantine  the  Great 
(Yol.  I,  page  197),  has  the  following  remarks  :  ''  In 
these  solemn  assemblies  of  the  Christians,  the  kaimo- 
7iia,  or  charitable  contribution  toward  the  relief  of  the 
necessitous,  was  followed,  according  to  St.  Luke,  by 
the  "  breaking  of  bread."  The  expression,  "to  break 
bread,"  when  it  occurs  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
is  for  the  most  part  to  be  understood  as  signifying  the 
celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  which  bread  was 
broken  and  distributed :  we  are  not,  however,  to  con- 
sider it  as  exclusively  referring  to  this  ordinance  of 
our  Saviour,  but  as  also  implying  that  feast  of  love, 
of  which  it  was  the  customary  practice  of  the  Chris- 
tians, even  from  the  very  first,  always  at  the  same  time 


MR.    QUINTER'S    second    ADDRESS.  185 

to  partake.  That  these  two  things  were  thus  asso- 
ciated together,  even  in  the  very  earliest  infancy  of 
Christianity,  is  clear  from  what  is  said  by  St.  Luke, 
in  Acts,  ii :  46.  For  after  having  there  told  us  that 
the  brethren  at  Jerusalem  continued  daily  in  the 
breaking  of  bread  at  different  houses,  he  immediately 
adds  that  ''  they  did  eat  their  food  together  with  joy 
and  simplicity  of  heart"  (meialambanon  trophes  en 
agalliasei  kai  apheloteti  kardias).  See,  also.  Acts, 
XX :  11,  where  the  breaking  of  bread,  or  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  again  clearly  associated 
with  a  feast  or  repast  of  the  Christians.  It  appears, 
therefore,  that  when,  in  compliance  with  our  Saviour's 
injunction,  the  Ciiristians  would  break  bread  together, 
they  also  partook  of  a  repast,  in  the  nature  of  a  sup- 
per. Their  meals  of  this  sort  were  distinguished  by 
an  holy  mirth,  arising  out  of  the  love  of  Christ  and 
of  the  brethren  ;  but  this  hilarity  had  no  connection 
whatever  with  anything  like  sensuality  or  intemper- 
ance. And  this  is  what  I  understand  St.  Luke  to 
mean  by  that  simplicity  of  heart  with  which  he  states 
the  Christians  to  have  eaten  their  food.  For,  what 
are  we  to  understand  by  a  heart  in  a  state  of  simplic- 
ity, but  a  heart  altogether  devoid  of  every  sensual 
and  depraved  appetite?  The  service  terminated  with 
some  general  prayers,  which  appear  to  have  been  dis- 
tinctly recited  by  one  or  other  of  the  apostles  or 
presbyters,  and  repeated  after  him  by  the  whole  con- 
gregation. 

Brown,  in  his  "  Bible  Dictionary,"  under  the  head 
of  "Agapae,"  says:  ''This  is  a  Greek  word,  and 
signifies  properly  'friendship.'  The  feasts  of  charity, 
which  were  in  use  in  the  primitive  church,  were  called 
by  this  name.  They  were  celebrated  in  memory  of 
the  last  supper  which  Jesus  Christ  made  with  his 
apostles,  when  he  instituted  the  eucharist.  These 
festivals  were  kept  in  the  church,  toward  the  evening, 


186       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD's  SUPPER. 

after  the  common  prayers  were  over,  and  the  word 
of  salvation  had  been  heard.  When  this  was  done 
the  faithful  ate  together,  with  great  simplicity  and 
union,  what  every  man  had  brought  them ;  so  that 
the  rich  and  the  poor  were  in  no  Avise  distinguished. 
After  an  economical  and  moderate  supper,  they  par- 
took of  the  Lord's  body  and  blood,  and  gave  each 
other  the  kiss  of  peace." 

0  my  friends,  what  love,  and  union,  and  brotherly 
affection  is  here  portrayed !  Would  to  God  that  we 
might  realize  it  again  !  that  this  discussion  might  do 
something;  toward  brinoj-ino;  about  ao;ain  that  blessed 
condition  of  affairs!  When  I  look  back  to  Christi- 
anity in  those  early  ages,  and  see  the  love,  and  hu- 
mility, and  unity,  and  zeal,  and  earnestness,  exhibited 
in  the  lives  of  the  primitive  Christians,  I  am  hurt  to 
think  we  have  lost  so  much  of  its  power,  and  feel 
constrained  to  use  every  exertion  to  restore  the  an- 
cient symbols  and  institutions  of  Christianity,  in  the 
hope  that  if  they  were  all  restored  we  should  have 
more  of  that  wonderful  power  which  Christianity 
possessed  in  its  infancy.  If  so  powerful  in  its  in- 
fancy, what  ought  it  to  be  in  the  nineteenth  century 
of  its  age?  But  behold  what  it  is  to-day.  Exalted 
by  pride,  yet  torn  to  pieces  by  divisions,  filled  with 
gross  corruptions — some  of  which  my  friend  and  I 
are  trying  to  get  out  of  the  way.  But  to  proceed 
with  my  argument. 

Olshausen,  in  his  commentary  on  Acts,  xx :  7, 
"  And  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  the  dis- 
ciples came  together  to  break  bread,  Paul  preached 
unto  them,  ready  to  depart  on  the  morrow,  and  con- 
tinued his  speech  till  midnight,"  says  :  "  The  con- 
nection plainly  leads  to  this  conclusion ;  that  the 
apostle  wished  to  Observe  Sunday  with  the  church, 
and  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  also  the  (iJcLp^y 
with  them,  before  he  left  Troas." 


MR.    QUINTER's    second    ADDRESS.  187 

Kitto,  in  his  "Encyclopedia  of  Biblical  Literature," 
under  the  article  "Agape,''  has  the  tbllowiiig :  "The 
primary  celebration  of'  the  eucharist  had  impressed  a 
sacrediiess  on  the  previous  repast — compavo  esfhionion 
aufon,  M:ittlie\v,  xxvi :  26,  and  Mark,  xiv  :  22,  with 
meta  to  delpnesai^  Luke,  xxii  :  20,  and  I  Corinthians, 
xi :  25  ;  and  when  to  this  consideration  we  add  the 
ardent  faith  and  love  of  the  new  converts  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  loss  of  property  with  the  disruption  of 
old  connections  and  attachments  on  the  other,  which 
must  have  hi^j^htened  the  feelinji  of  brotherhood,  we 
need  not  look  further  to  account  for  the  institution  of 
the  agtipe,  at  once  a  symbol  of  Christian  love,  and  a 
striking  exemplification  of  its  benevolent  energy. 
However  soon  its  purity  was  soiled,  at  first  it  was  not 
undeserving  of  the  eulogy  pronounced  by  the  great 
orator  of  the  church:  'A  custom  most  beautiful 
and  most  beneficial ;  for  it  was  a  supporter  of  love,  a 
solace  of  poverty,  a  moderator  of  wealth,  and  a  dis- 
cipline of  humility.'" 

I  am  reading  a  little  more  of  ihe^e  quotations  than 
I  otherwise  would,  because  I  want  to  present  to  this 
community  the  matter  in  its  moral  effects.  I  want  to 
show  that  these  learned  and  eminent  men,  in  noticing 
tliis  practice  in  the  primitive  church,  this  love-feast  in 
connection  with  the  bread  and  wine,  place  particular 
stress  upon  the  peculiar,  potent  and  desirable  effects 
exerted  thereby  upon  its  participants.  I  want  it  un- 
derstood that  to  take  away  the  spirituality  of  this  in- 
stitution, its  quickening  power,  its  Christianizing  in- 
fluence, would  leave  it  worth  but  little.  But  we 
maintain  that  when  properly  attended  to,  when  its 
spirituality  is  retained,  when  observed  for  the  purpose 
and  in  the  manner  originally  designed,  its  results  are 
most  excellent  and  happy.  This  makes  me  anxious 
and  zealous  to  do  something  more  than  simply  to  sus- 
tain my  side  of  the  question  in  arguing  the  proposi- 


188       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 

tion  under  debate — to  endeavor  to  present  the  power- 
ful, Christianizing,  spiritualizing  effects  of  the  prac- 
tice in  its  proper  light  before  the  world,  so  far  as  my 
humble  powers  will  enable  me  to  do  so. 

Neander,  in  his  "History  of  the  Christian  Religion 
and  Church  during  the  Three  First  Centuries,"  says: 
^'  After  the  model  of  the  Jewish  Passover,  and  the 
first  institution  of  this  rite,  the  celebration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  originally  was  always  joined  with  a 
geyieral  meal^  and  both  together  formed  one  whole; 
and  because  the  communion  of  believers  with  the 
Lord,  and  their  brotherly  communion  with  each  other, 
were  represented  by  it,  the  two  together  were  called, 
the  Supper  of  the  Lord  {deipnon  ton  kurion^  or 
deipyion  kuriakon),  or  the  love-feast  {agape).  It  was 
the  daily  rite  of  Christian  communion  in  the  first 
church  at  Jerusalem.  In  Acts,  ii:  46,  we  are  most 
probably  to  understand  both  together  under  the 
phrase  klan  artoyi.  We  find  both  connected  together 
in  the  first  Corinthian  church,  and  one  is  inclined  to 
suppose  that  this  was  also  the  innocent,  simple  meal 
of  the  Christians,  of  which  Pliny  speaks  in  his  report 
to  the  Emperor  Trajan." 

I  may  here  remark  that  Neander,  with  many  other 
eminent  men,  believed  that  the  communion  was  orig- 
inally taken  daily. 

Coleman,  in  his  "Ancient  Christianity  Exempli- 
fied," says:  "  After  the  example  of  the  Jewish  Pass- 
over, and  of  the  original  institution,  the  .Lord's  Sup- 
per was  at  first  united  with  a  social  meal.  Both  con- 
stituted a  whole,  representing  a  communion  of  the 
faithful  with  their  Lord,  and  their  brotherly  commun- 
ion with  one  another.  Jjoth  together  were  called 
'The  Supper  of  the  Lord'  {deipnon  ton  kurion,  or 
deipnon  knriakon),  or  '  The  Supper  of  Love'  {agape).'' 

Cave,  in  his  "Primitive  Christianity,"  says:  ''  We 
come   last   of   all  to  consider   the  manner   how   the 


MR.    QUIXTER's    second    ADDRESS.  180 

euchavist  was  celebrated  in  the  ancient  church.  But 
before  we  describe  that,  we  are  to  take  notice  that 
after  the  service  of  the  catechumens,  and  before  the 
be<2;innin(T  of  that  of  the  faithful,  at  which  the  euclia- 
rist  was  administered,  tlie  custom  was  to  present  tlieir 
offerings,  every  one  according  to  liis  ability  bringing 
some  gifts  as  the  first  fruits  of  his  increase,  which 
was  by  the  minister  hiid  upon  the  altar,  or  communion 
table  ;  none  of  them  then  thinking  jt  fit  to  appear 
before  the  Lord  empty.  Out  of  these  oblations,  also, 
it  is  probable  they  took  (at  least  sent  provisions  ex- 
traordinary), to  furnish  the  common  feast,  ivhich  in 
those  da^s  they  condantlij  had  at  the  celebration  of  the 
sacrament^  where  the  rich  and  the  poor  feasted  to- 
gether at  the  same  table.  These  were  called  aga-pe^ 
or  Move-feasts'  (mentioned  by  St.  Jude,  and  plainly 
enough  intimated  by  St.  Paul),  because  hereat  they 
testified  and  confirmed  their  mutual  love  and  kind- 
ness— a  thing  never  more  proper  than  at  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Supper." 

Bingham,  in  his  ''Antiquities  of  the  Christian 
Church,"  Book  XV,  chap,  vii,  after  describing  minutely 
the  eucharist  and  the  agape^  or  love-feast,  makes  the 
following  remark  upon  the  latter:  "From  whence  it 
appears  that  this  was  a  ritual  always  accompan3Mng 
the  communion." 

Macknight,  in  his  new  translation  of  and  commen- 
tary on  the  Epistles,  says,  in  his  notes  on  I  Corinthi- 
ans, xi :  21 :  "  Christ  having  instituted  his  supper  after 
he  had  eaten  the  passover,  his  disciples  very  early 
made  it  a  rule  to  feast  together  before  they  ate  the 
Lord's  Supper.  These  feasts  were  called  {ugapoiy 
chiritates)  '  love-feasts.'  They  are  mentioned  by  Jude, 
verse  12,  as  also  by  some  of  the  ancient  writers." 

Such  is  the  testimony  I  offer — not  all  that  I  could 
present,  but  sufl&cient  for  the  purpose  on  this  occa- 
sion— in  defense  of  the  first  part  of  my  proposition, 


190       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 

viz  :  that  the  apostolic  church  had,  in  connection  with 
the  eating  of  the  symbols  representing  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  a  meal,  or  feast ;  and  I  can  not  be- 
lieve that  a  careful  examination  of  the  testimony  I 
have  adduced  can  fail  to  convince  every  candid  mind 
that  this  position  is  correct. 

You  will  now  perceive  that  it  is  not  the  Tonkers 
alone,  with  slander  often  thrown  upon  us,  with  ridi- 
cule cast  at  our  roasted  lamb,  and  soup,  etc.  (when 
argument  can  not  succeed,  ridicule  is  always  resorted 
to),  that  claim  a  general  meal  in  connection  with  the 
emblems  of  the  Lord's  body  and  blood.  We  occupy 
ground  that  the  wisest  and  most  learned  men — I  had 
nearly  said,  all  the  wisest  and  most  learned  men — 
concede  to  us.  When  tempted  hereafter  to  sneer  at 
the  Tonkers,  do  not  forget  this ;  do  not  forget  that 
the  most  eminent  commentators,  the  most  profound 
scholars,  the  most  learned  historians,  studiously  ex- 
amining the  Scriptures  and  the  early  history  of 
Christianity,  proclaim  it  as  an  undoubted  and  undeni- 
able fact  that  there  was  a  general  meal  eaten  in  con- 
nection with  the  communion,  in  the  primitive  Christ- 
ian church.     [Time  expired. 


[MR.  McCONXELL'S  THIRD  ADDRESS.] 
Gentlemen  Moderators — I  \\\\\  commence,  lest  I 
should  forget  it,  by  answering  a  question  directed 
particularly  to  me  by  my  friend  in  his  last  speech 
this  forenoon.  He  asked,  ''Have  the  disciples  a 
table?"  I  answered  with  an  emphatic  Yes.  1  have 
been  breaking  the  loaf  in  connection  with  the  dis- 
ciples this  twenty-eight  years  ;  and  we  have  always, 
in  every  place,  and  under  all  circumstances,  had  a 
table  upon  whicli  was  found  the  broken  body  and  shed 
blood  of  our  divine  lledcemer.     There  may  be  some 


MH.  m'connell's  third  address.  191 

question  whether  it  was  always  a  t.ible,  or  sometimes 
something  else.  Webster's  first  definition  of  a  table 
is,  "  a  flat  surface,"  or  "  a  thing  that  has  a  flat  sur- 
face." Whether  the  table  be  four  feet  wide  and  six 
feet  long,  or  one  foot  wide  and  two  feet  long,  or 
whatever  be  its  shape,  or  size,  if  it  has  a  flat  surface, 
it  is  a  table. 

My  friend  remarked  that  no  commentator  has  ever 
claimed  that  the  twelfth  verse  of  Jude  referred  to  the 
symbols — the  brea<l  and  wine.  This,  I  presume  to  say, 
is  true  ;  ami  I  will  go  further  :  I  will  say  that  I  do  not 
believe  that  any  man,  in  his  right  mind,  and  with  a  clear 
perception  of  what  the  apostle  says,  has  ever  thought 
of  referring  the  agapce  of  Jude  to  the  symbols  of  the 
broken  body  and  shed  blood  of  our  Lord.  In  addition 
to  this,  however,  I  will  say,  that  no  commentator,  or 
other  writer,  known  to  me,  has  ever  claimed  that  this 
passage  had  any  reference  to,  or  called  the  agapce 
of  Ju<le  by,  the  term,  '•  The  Lord's  Supper."  In  order 
to  make  his  arguments  connect,  my  friend  must  show 
that  the  Bible  an wy here  calls  the  agapce  of  Jude 
*'  The  Lord's  Supper."  He  may  prove  as  many  sup- 
pers and  love-feasts  as  he  chooses — I  am  sure  I  shall 
not  interfere  with  him  ;  but  what  is  demanded  of  him 
here  is  quite  a  difi'erent  thing — i.  e.,  to  prove  that  the 
bread  and  wine  which  the  Lord  commanded  his  dis- 
ciples to  eat  in  remembrance  of  him,  and  the  onlg 
thing  he  ever  commanded  them  to  eat  in  remembrance 
of  him,  is  not  the  Lord's  Supper. 

My  friend  quoted  from  some  writer,  I  do  not  now 
recollect  whom,  a  remark  to  the  eff'ect  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  early  abused;  its  purity  was  soon  soiled. 
But  abuses  crept  into  the  manner  of  observing  this 
ordinance  at  an  earlier  day  than  any  writer  he  has 
quoted  in  this  connection.  Even  in  the  apostolic 
church,  as  appears  from  Paul's  severe  rebuke  to  the 
Corinthians,  such    abuses   had  become    incorporated 


192       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD's  SUPPER. 

with  it,  it  had  become  a  thing  so  far  from  what  the 
Lord  intended  and  commanded,  that  the  apostle  de- 
chired  it  was  not  the  Lord's  supper  at  all.  The 
Corinthians  had  degraded  it  to  the  level  of  a  common 
meal ;  brought  food  of  all  kinds,  as  to  a  common 
meal ;  and  eaten  it  as  they  would  a  common  meal,  to 
satisfy  common  physical  hunger.  But  what  surprises 
me  is,  that  men  professing  to  be  guided  by  the  Scrip- 
ture, should  seize  upon  and  make  an  ordinance  out  of 
the  very  abuses  that  Paul  so  bitterly  rebukes.  "  This 
is  not  to  eat  the  Lord's  Supper,"  says  Paul ;  or  as  my 
friend  seems  to  prefer — "  there  is  no  eating  the  sup- 
per of  the  Lord."  The  difference  in  the  meaning  of 
the  two  translations  I  can  not  see.  Then  the  next 
verse  is  introduced  by  a  conjunction,  "  for."  We 
seem  to  be  in  a  fair  way  to  learn  something  about 
this  conjunction.  The  conjunction  "for"  introduces 
the  twenty -first  verse,  which  my  friend  says,  gives 
the  reason  why  the  Lord's  Supper  was  not  eaten  : 
''Every  one  taketh  before  other  his  own  supper:  and 
one  is  hungry,  and  another  is  drunken."  I  grant 
this  is  a  reason,  but  not  the  only  reason.  I  join  issue 
between  "  a"  and  the;  between  this  being  a  reason, 
and  being  the  reason.  The  twenty-second  verse  is  of 
a  parenthetical  nature,  in  which  the  apostle  expresses 
his  surprise  and  disgust  at  their  thus  profaning  the 
temple  of  God;  if  eating  and  drinking  is  what  you 
desire,  "  have  ye  not  houses  to  eat  and  drink  in  ?  " 
The  twenty-third  verse  is  introduced  by  another  con- 
junction, "  for,"  giving  another,reason  why  this  is  to 
not  eat  the  Lord's  Supper.  Well,  Paul,  what  else  ? 
What  other  reason  have  you  to  offer  ?  Because,  says 
he,  this  is  an  entirely  different  thing  from  what  I 
received  from  the  Lord.  And  then  he  {>roceeds  to 
narrate,  from  the  twenty-tliinl  to  the  twenty-sixth 
verse,  inclusive,  the  circumstances  connected  with  tlie 
eating  of  the  bread  and  the  drinking  of  the  cup,  with 


103 

"which  you  are  all  familiar.  That  is  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per— not  eating  an  ordinary  meal  to  satisfy  physical 
hunger  ;  "if  any  m;ni  hunger,"  he  adds  in  the  thirty- 
fourth  verse,  "  let  him  eat  at  homeJ'^ 

My  friend  propounded  to  me  a  query,  and  on  my 
answering  it,  promised  to  answer  a  question  I  asked 
hiui.  which  you  will  all  remcmher.  llis  question  to 
me  was,  "  What  kind  of  bread  did  the  Lord  command 
to  be  eaten  by  his  disciples?"  I  answer,  the  very 
kind  he  had  in  his  hand.  If  that  is  not  satisfactory, 
and  you  ask  me  what  kind  of  bread  he  had  in  his 
l\and,  I  say,  unleavened  bread.  Because  it  was  imme- 
diately after  the  paschal  supper  that  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per was  instituted  ;  in  connection  with  the  feast  of 
the  Passover  ;  and  the  Jewish  law  forbade  the  Jews 
to  have  any  other  kind  of  bread  in  their  houses  on 
that  occasion. 

Now,  if  my  friend  pleases,  we  will  have  the  answer 
to  the  question  I  propounded  to  him.  "What  ar^  the 
elements  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  if  they  be  7iot  the  bread 
and  wine  ?  " 

My  friend  has  read  from  a  number  of  historians 
and  commentators — I  can  not  well  keep  track  of  all 
the  authors  he  quotes,  nor  always  distinguish  between 
the  quotation  he  is  reading  and  the  comments  he 
makes  in  connection  therewith.  I  do  not  mind  that  so 
much,  for  I  do  not  come  here  to  establish  my  position 
by  commentators,  and  annotators,  and  historians  ;  my 
inductions  arc  from  the  text,  and  not  the  comment,  or 
the  comment  on  the  comment.  But  some  of  his  au- 
thors say,  '•  Paul  wished  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, a«  aho  the  agape,  with  the  disciples,  before  he 
loft  Troas  ;  "  "  the  primary  celebration  of  the  eucha- 
rist  had  impressed  a  sacredness  on  the  previous  re- 
pa%t^'  and  one  of  them  (Macnight,  I  believe.)  says  the 
disciples  "  made  it  a  rule  to  feast  together  before  they 
ate  the  Lord's  Supper."    Now,  my  friend  quotes  these 


194       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD's  SUPPER. 

authors,  because  he  says  they  sustain  him  in  his  po- 
sition ;  but  if  so,  ^hat  is  the  meaning  of  such  ex- 
pressions as  these  ?  If  the  agape,  or  love-feast,  is 
the  Lord's  Supper,  where  the  propriety  of  saying  that 
Paul  wished  to  celebrate  that  and  also  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per ?  What  sense  in  saying  the  eucharist  had  im- 
pressed a  sacredness  on  the  previous  repast,  if  that 
"previous  repast"  was  the  eucharist,  or  a  part  of  it  ? 
If  this  feast  they  ate  is  the  Lord's  Supper,  then  to 
say,  "  they  made  it  a  rule  to  feast  together  before 
they  ate  the  Lord's  Supper,"  is  saying  'nhey  made  it 
a  rule  to  eat  the  Lord's  Supper  before  they  ate  the 
Lord's  Supper" — and  that  is  simply  nonsense. 

Our  attention  has  been  called  to  the  second  chap- 
ter of  Acts.  Let  us  look,  for  a  moment,  at  the  forty- 
first  and  forty-second  verses  :  "  Then  they  that  gladly 
received  his  word  were  baptized ;  and  the  same  day 
there  were  added  unto  them  about  three  thousand 
souls.  And  they  continued  steadfastly  in  the  apos- 
tles' doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread, 
and  in  prayers."  My  frien<l,  and  I,  and  all,  I  pre- 
sume, understand  this  "breaking  of  bread  "  to  be  the 
breaking  of  bread  in  the  communion — in  commemo- 
ration of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  Very  well  ; 
now  proceed  to  the  forty -sixth  verse,  and  we  have  the 
term  "breaking  bread"  in  another  meaning,  as  is 
very  evident  from  the  context:  "And  they,  continu- 
ing daily,  with  one  accord,  in  the  temple,  and  break- 
ing bread  from  house  to  house,  did  eat  their  meat 
with  <iladness  and  siii<ileness  of  heart."  There  Avas  a 
wonderful  meeting  at  Jerusalem  ;  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation there  commenced;  the  church  was  there  first 
established ;  on  the  very  first  day.  three  thousand 
converts  were  made  ;  and  the  apostles  continued  in 
the  temple,  worshiping  God  and  ol)serving  his  ordi- 
nances; but  they  broke  bread,  not  ''in  the  temple,'* 
but  "  from  house  to  house;"  evidently  meaning  that 


MR.  m"coxxi:t,i/s  third  address.  195 

they  {li(i  as  we  liave  been  doini:;  to-day — preaching  at 
the  plnce  nppointed  for  worsliip,  and  then  breaking 
bread  together  at  private  houses — eating  at  the  houses 
of  the  brethren  the  food  tliat  was  necessary  to  supply 
their  physical  needs.  This  interpretation  is  sustained 
by  the  remark  placed  in  immediate  connection  there- 
with, not  even  with  the  intervention  of  a  conjunction, 
but  as  a  part  of  the  same  sentence,  so  shaped  as  to 
indicate  the  whole  as  being  done  at  the  same  time  and 
place,  and  as  part  of  the  same  act — "  and  breaking 
bread  from  house  to  house,  did  eat  their  meat  with 
gladness  and  singleness  of  heart." 

I  have  already  referred  m}^  friend  to  one  point,  and 
now  I  ask  him  the  direct  question  :  Is  the  agape  of 
Jude  ever  called,  in  any  portion  of  Scripture,  the 
Lord's  Supper  ?  or  is  there  any  reference  to  it,  by 
any  writer  of  Scripture,  from  which,  by  any  fair 
induction,  we  may  conclude  it  to  mean  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per ?  If  not,  then  the  whole  argument  based  upon 
the  agape,  or  feast  of  love,  is  utterly  irrelevant  in 
this  discussion — is  without  pertinence  or  force. 

Our  Lord  does,  in  one  place,  give  instructions  in 
reference  to  a  supper,  or  feast,  which,  if  conducted 
according  to  his  commands,  would  much  more  closely 
resemble  the  agape,  or  feast  of  charity,  than  does  the 
partaking  of  the  bread  and  wine.  In  Luke,  chap,  xiv, 
he  tells  one  who  had  bidden  him  to  a  feast,  ''  When 
thou  makesta  dinner,  or  a  supper,  call  not  thy  friends, 
nor  thy  brethren,  neither  thy  kinsmen,  nor  thy  rich 
neighbors;  lest  they  also  bid  thee  again,  and  a  recom- 
pense be  made  thee.  But  when  thou  makest  a  feast, 
call  the  poor,  the  maimed,  the  lame,  the  blind  ;  and 
thou  shalt  be  blessed  ;  for  they  can  not  recompense 
thee;  but  thou  shalt  be  recompensed  at  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  just."  Do  not  get  up  costly  suppers  for 
rich  friends  who  have  enough  of  tlieir  own  to  eat; 
but  feed  those  who  need  food;  help  those  who  need 


196       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD's  SUPPER. 

help  ;  they  cnn  not  reward;  but  your  reward  shall  he 
sure,  at  tlie  resurrection.  But  licre.  it  seems  to  me, 
our  Tonker  brethren  fail  to  fulfill  our  Lord's  command  ; 
they  get  up  a  feast,  and  after  they  have  satisfied  their 
own  appetite,  their  neighbors,  "outsiders,"  can  come 
and  eat  what  is  left,  if  there  be  any  left.  This  is  a 
gross  perversion  of  the  instructions  of  our  Saviour  in 
reference  to  these  feasts  of  charity  ;  and  I  earnestly 
admonish  my  Tonker  brethren  to  change  their  course 
in  this  respect. 

One  of  my  friend's  authorities,  whose  name  I  did  not 
catch,  in  referring  to  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Acts, 
says  Paul  wished  to  celebrate  the  agape  with  the  disci- 
ples, before  leaving  Troas.  Now,  I  have  examined  that 
narrative  pretty  carefully,  and  I  can  not  find  the  word 
agape  there,  nor  any  reference  to  it.  I  do  find  the 
Lord's  Supper  referred  to  there — not  under  the  name 
of  agape,  however,  but  in  the  seventh  verse,  where  it 
is  said  "the  disciples  came  together  to  break  bread." 
Then  Paul  preached,  and  continued  his  discourse  till 
midnight ;  during  his  discourse,  a  young  man  fell  from 
an  upper  window,  and  was  taken  up  for  dead  ;  but  Paul 
healed  him,  and  restored  him  alive  to  his  friends;  and 
after  the  preaching,  Paul  broke  bread  a  second  time, 
which  was  evidently  not  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  a  meal 
for  the  satisfaction  of  physical  hunger;  for  it  says 
lie  broke  bread,  and  ate^  and  talked  a  long  while,  so 
that  it  was  daybreak  before  he  departed.  So  here  are 
two  places  (Acts  ii,  and  Acts  xx,)  where  the  break- 
ing of  bread  appears  to  be  spoken  of  in  two  different 
senses  in  each  case — first  in  a  sort  of  technical  sense, 
indicating  the  partaking  of  the  symbols  of  the  Lord's 
body  and  blood,  and  secondly  in  the  ordinary  sense, 
of  eating  a  conimon  meal  for  the  supply  of  })hysical 
needs.  But  mark  this  :  In  neither  case  is  the  word 
agape  to  be  found.  In  neither  case  is  any  general 
feast  of  the  church  referred  to.     But  the  Lord's  Sup- 


MR.    m'CONNELL'S   third    ADDRESS.  197 

per — the  bread  and  wine — is  referred  to,  unconnected 
with  any  feast  of  the  church  :  which  proves  my  propo- 
sition, that  tlie  agape  was  not  the  Lord's  Supper. 

My  friend  read,  from  some  authority,  that  the  pri- 
mary celebration  of  the  eucharist,  in  connection  with 
the  paschal  supper,  had  conferred  a  sacredness  on  the 
previous  repast,  and  that  consequently  both  were  cel- 
ebrated together,  and  became  associated  under  the 
name  of  the  most  important  of  the  two — the  Lord's 
Supper.  Hence,  he  argues — or  else  there  is  no  argu- 
ment in  the  fact  at  all — that  the  emblems,  the  bread 
and  wine  alone,  were  no  longer  really  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, but  that  the  feast  was  the  Lord's  Supper.  I  can 
not  com|)rehend  that  logic.  A  man  and  woman  are 
united  in  marriage — the  woman  assumes  the  name  of 
her  husband,  losing  her  name  in  his;  consequently  the 
man  is  a  man  no  longer.  The  only  man  there  is,  is 
the  woman.  That  is  the  reasoning  by  which  my  friend 
transforms  the  feast,  in  connection  with  which  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  eaten,  into  the  Lord's  Supper 
itself. 

The  substance  of  all  my  friend's  arguments  and 
quotations,  is  expressed  in  one  of  his  quotations  to 
the  effect  that,  "•  after  the  example  of  the  Jewish 
Passover,  the  Lord's  Supper  was  associated  with  a 
feast."  I  do  not  dispute  that;  but  I  ask  by  whom 
was  it  associated  with  a  feast?  By  Jesus  Christ?  By 
any  of  the  apostles?  No!  but  by  the  converted 
Jews,  who  still  cling  to  the  institutions  of  Judaism, 
and  endeavored  to  incorporate  them  with  the  institu- 
tions of  Christianity  :  and  they  united  with  the  Lord's 
Supper  a  feast  borrowed  from  the  Jewish  dispensa- 
tion. And  this  occasioned  more  trouble  than  any 
other  one  thing  in  the  early  days  of  Christianity.  The 
first  eleven  chapters  of  Bomans  were  written  for  the 
very  purpose  of  correcting  these  errors  ;  the  letter  to 
the  Galatians  was  written  with  that  thought  in  mind ; 


198       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD's.  SUPPER. 

SO  also  with  the  letter  to  the  Hebrews ;  in  fact,  the 
same  may  be  said  of  three-fourths  of  the  epistolary 
writings.  But  with  all  that,  there  was  a  constant 
tendency  among  the  converted  Jews  to  revert  to  the 
institutions  and  teachings  of  Judaism  ;  and  even  in 
the  blessed  light  of  the  glorious  nineteenth  century, 
there  are  men  who  still  look  back  to  the  ordinances 
of  Judaism,  and  seek  to  incorporate  them  into  Chris- 
tianity.    l^Tinie  expired. 


[MR.  QUINTER'S  THIRD  ADDRESS.] 

Friendly  Moderators — The  first  point  I  will  notice 
will  be  the  first  point  my  friend  noticed — in  regard 
to  that  table.  He  says,  the  disciples  have  a  table  ; 
but  he  does  not  say  that  all  his  brethren  receive  vhat 
they  partake  of,  from  off  that  table  ;  there  is  the  diffi- 
culty. That  this  is  what  the  apostle  means  in  the 
letter  to  the  Corinthians,  is  evident  from  the  context. 
"  Ye  can  not  be  partakers  of  the  Lord's  table,  and  of 
the  table  of  devils.''  Now,  how  did  they  partake  of 
the  table  of  devils?  Tliey  sat  around  the  table,  and 
ate  from  it  the  provisions  that  were  upon  it.  Twu  par- 
allel cases  are  set  forth  in  contrast;  and  in  whatever 
way  they  ate  from  the  "  table  of  devils,"  they  ought 
to  eat  from  the  "  Lord's  table."  It  does  seem  to  me 
that  for  the  minister  alone  to  go  to  the  table,  take  the 
bread  and  wine,  carry  it  around  to  the  congregation, 
and  let  them  partake  of  it  wherever  they  may  be,  is 
not  for  them  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  table  ;  or  if  so, 
it  is  in  a  very  indirect  way. 

My  friend  tries  to  carry  the  idea  that  any  flat  sur- 
face, anywhere,  and  of  any  kind  or  size,  is  a -table; 
and  that  if  the  symbols  are  placed  on  a  boar<l,  or 
bench,  or  flat  stone,  and  the  minister  takes  it  from 
there  to  the  congregation,  that  is  all  that  is  required. 


MR.  quinter's  third  address.  199 

But  this  general  and  indefinite  manner  of  interpreta- 
tion does  not  suit  my  friend  when  applied  to  haplizo. 
Some  persons  give  that  word  a  sort  of  vague,  general 
definition,  meaning  a  great  many  things — occasionally 
to  sprinkle.  But  my  friend,  if  arguing  upon  the 
word  htiptizo,  would  insist  upon  the  ordinary  usual 
meaning  of  the  word;  and  wc  ask  him  to  follow  the 
same  rule  in  determining  the  meaning  of  the  word 
"  table,"  and  the  phrase,  "  partaking  of  the  Lord's 
table." 

I  want  to  refer  to  Paul's  language,  in  this  eleventh 
chaj)ter  of  Corinthians,  again.  I  can  not  accept  of 
the  interpretation  my  friend  places  upon  it.  The 
Lord's  Supper,  according  to  the  customs  of  the  prim- 
itive church,  was  followed  by  partaking  of  the  sym- 
bols of  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Saviour.  But  the 
members  of  the  church  at  Corinth' ate  the  supper  as 
they  would  their  own  supper,  *'  not  discerning  the 
Lord's  body."  Such  utter  confusion  obtained  among 
them  that  the  emblems  were  not  used  at  all ;  but  Paul 
tells  them  that,  in  eating  the  Lord's  Supper,  this  por- 
tion of  it  must  not  be  forgotten  ;  this  he  says,  and  we 
acknowledge,  to  be  a  part  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and 
a  part  that  should  not  be  neglected ;  but  the  Corin- 
thians did  neglect  it — hence  Paul's  admonition  to  them. 
Each  member  had  brought  something  to  constitute  a 
portion  of  the  common  meal;  but  instead  of  waiting, 
and  putting  it  in  with  the  general  store,  and  letting 
all  partake,  they  ate  their  ow)i  provisions,  which  they 
had  just  brought;  and  besides  this,  they  neglected  to 
serve  out  the  bread  and  wine,  the  emblems  of  our 
Lord's  body  and  blood,  which  were  to  be  taken  in  con- 
nection with  the  preceding  feast  or  meal,  this  meal 
constituting  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  is  the  explana- 
tion we  present  of  this  matter ;  and  we  submit  that  it 
is  perfectly  satisfactory. 

My  friend  refers  to  a  feast  to  which  our  Saviour 


200       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD's  SUPPER. 

alluded,  when  he  commanded  that  the  poor,  the 
maimed,  the  lame,  the  blind,  should  be  invited.  But 
the  feast,  or  meal,  that  is  spoken  of  under  the  name 
of  the  agape,  and  to  Avhich  Luke  evidently  alludes 
when  he  says  that  Paul  remained  at  Troas  till  "  the 
disciples  came  together  to  break  bread,"  was  not  a 
feast  tor  everybody  ;  it  was  a  feast  for  the  brethren — 
for  the  church.  And  our  poor  brethren  in  the  church 
are  as  welcome  as  the  wealthiest  at  our  feast  of  love, 
and  are  not  asked  to  contribute  toward  it.  As  a 
minister  of  the  gospel  of  Christ  I  do  not  ask  my  poor 
brethren  to  help  rae. 

I  put  the  question  to  my  friend  as  to  what  bread 
should  be, eaten  at  the  Lord's  Supper.  He  said,  the 
example  of  our  Lord  was,  to  partake  of  unleavened 
bread ;  because  there  was  no  other  kind  of  bread 
allowed  in  the  houses  of  the  Jews  at  that  time.  Then 
he  asked  me  as  to  what  should  constitute  our  feast. 
I  answer  that,  as  far  as  the  example  of  Christ  goes, 
unleavened  bread  should  constitute  a  portion  of  the 
feast.  All  that  was  said  (to  which  my  friend  referred 
in  the  conclusion  of  his  remarks)  about  the  Jewish 
Passover,  occurred  in  quotations  I  read ;  they  were 
not  remarks  of  my  own,  but  in  quoting  from  the  au- 
thors whose  testimony  I  wished  to  adduce,  these 
remarks  about  the  Jewish  Passover  incidentally  came 
in,  and  it  was  difficult  to  separate  them  from  the  con- 
text. I  did  not  intend,  and  do  not  design  yet,  to  draw 
into  the  discussion  the  question  as  to  zvhat  supper  it 
was  that  the  Lord  was  eating  with  his  disciples,  when 
he  instituted  the  communion.  I  do  not  see  that  that 
has  anything  to  do  with  the  matter. 

My  friend  claims  that  my  arguments  fiom  Jude,  in 
reference  to  the  agape,  and  from  Peter  on  the  same 
point,  have  no  relevancy  in  this  discussion  ;  have  no 
bearing  u[)on  the  question.  They  may  have  more 
bearing  upou  it  than  ho  ma^  at  first  suppose,     I  pro- 


MR.  quintek's  third  address.  201 

posed  to  pursue  the  course  -wliich  my  judgment  dic- 
tated to  me  would  hv  the  hetter  course  to  pursue,  :nid 
not  some  other  course  tliat  my  opponent  might  dic- 
tate. First,  I  proposed  to  prove,  and  I  have  proved, 
conclusively  proved,  that  there  was  a  meal  eaten  by 
the  apostolic  church,  in  connection  with  the  symbols 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  Now,  whether  tliis 
meal  was  the  Lord's  Supper  or  not,  since  such  a  meal 
existed  in  the  apostolic  church,  any  church  omitting 
this  meal  can  not  be  apostolic  in  its  mode  of  worship. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  the  other  branch  of  my  argu- 
ment, namely,  to  prove  that  this  meal,  and  not  the 
symbols  of  Christ's  body  and  blood,  constitutes  the 
Lord's  Supper.  In  fact,  this  would  be  the  natural 
inference,  the  conclusion  of  every  unprejudiced  mind, 
that  since  there  was  a  supper,  and  the  partaking  of 
the  bread  and  wine  is  not  a  meal,  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  means  the  supper,  and  not  the  bread  and  Avine, 
which  is  not  a  supper. 

1.  My  first  argument  will  be  drawn  from  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  used.  The  expression,  "Lord's  Sup- 
per," occurs  but  once  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  that 
is  in  the  eleventh  chapter  and  twentieth  verse  of  Paul's 
letter  to  the  Corinthians.  The  Greek  term  is  kuria- 
kon  deipnon.     The  word  deipnon  signifies  "  a  meal." 

Donnegan  defines  it  thus  :  "  In  Homer,  mostly,  the 
first  meal,  breakfast,  opposed  to  dorpos :  111.,  ix  :  53; 
XX  :  578  ;  Od.,  x  :  31L  Also,  the  evening  meal :  Od., 
(?)  176.  In  Attic  dialect — supper ;  the  afternoon  or 
evening  meal ;  and,  being  the  principal  meal,  a  feast, 
an  entertainment." 

Greenfield  defines  it  thus :  "A  morning  repast ; 
dinner,  prandium ;  in  N.  T.,  supper,  the  principal 
meal  of  the  Hebrews,  and  taken  by  them  in  the 
evening  :  Luke,  xiv  :  12  ;  John,  xiii  :  2." 

Parkhurst  defines  it  as  follows  :  "  1.  In  Homer,  it 
generally  denotes  the  breakfast,  or  morning  meal,  as 


202       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD's  SUPPER. 

111.,  ii:  381,  399;  but  sometimes  food  in  general, 
even  that  \Yl)icli  is  taken  towai'd  evening,  as  111., 
xviii :  560.  Hence — 2.  An  evening  meal,  or  feast: 
Matthew,  xxiii:  6;  Mark,  vi  :  20 ;  Luke,  xiv :  12." 

It  will  be  seen  that,  according  to  the  leading  and 
most  learned  definers  of  the  original  Greek  word, 
deipnon  signifies  a  meal,  or  feast.  Now,  we  insist 
upon  treating  this  word  the  same  as  that  other  Greek 
word,  haptizo ;  we  claim  that  we  must  accept  the  pri- 
mary and  usual  meaning  of  the  word.  If  we,  as  im- 
mersionists,  which  includes  my  friend,  insist  upon  this 
with  the  word  baptizo,  I  insist  upon  my  friend's  going 
by  the  same  rule  in  defining  the  word  deipnon.  To 
refuse  to  do  so,  subjects  him  to  an  inconsistency  for 
which  he  can  have  no  excuse.  The  pedobaptists  have 
discovered  this  inconsistency,  and  taken  advantage 
of  it  in  their  debates  with  the  immersionists.  I 
do  not  mean  with  us  Tonkers — for  our  practice  is 
in  conformity  with  not  only  the  example  of  Christ  and 
the  teachings  of  the  apostles,  but  the  definition  of  the 
word  used  by  Paul  in  speaking  of  it — but  with  our 
baptist  friends,  who  insist  on  taking  the  word  haptizo 
in  its  primary  and  usual  sense,  but,  when  they  come 
to  the  word  deip7ion,  immediately  dodge  tlie  applica- 
tion of  the  rule  upon  which  they  have  just  before 
insisted  so  strongly.  Dr.  Seiss,  an  eminent  pedobap- 
tist  author,  in  an  argument  against  immersion,  makes 
a  strong  point  agninst  us  on  account  of  this  incon- 
sistency, into  which  my  friend  falls,  when  he  insists 
that  the  supper  which  was  eaten  by  the  Lord  and  his 
disciples  the  night  of  his  betrayal  was  not  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  claims  that  to  be  the  Lord's  Supper  which 
is  no  su})per  at  all.     Dr.  Seiss  says : 

"We  have  another  argument  to  present;  an  argu- 
ment from  analogy.  We  are  about  to  submit  a  mode 
of  reasoning  which  has  no  need  of  demonstration  ; 
"which   exempts   us    entirely  from    the    necessity  of 


MR.    QUINTEll's    TIIIHD    ADDRESS.  203 

replvinf]^  nt  all  to  the  teachings  of  the  immersionists 
as  to  the  scholastic:il  and  common  meaiiinixs  of  the 
Avonl  in  (lis))nte  We  may  ixrant  tiiat  the  Greeks  ortli- 
narily  used  h(tptizo  to  siirnify  immersion,  an<l  that  all 
its  meaninors  nre  properly  resolvable  itito  this.  We 
may  entirely  dispense  with  and  wholly  set  aside  the 
conclusions  which  we  have  thus  far  adduced  ;  and  yet 
there  is  a  mode  of  reasoning  to  which  no  just  excep- 
tion can  possibly  be  taken,  which  entirely  confounds 
the  Baptist  claim,  and  establishes  a  bulwark  of  strength 
around  our  mode  of  baptism,  which  renders  it  forever 
invulnerable  a^^ainst  all  the  immersionist  lo";ic  in  the 
world. 

"It  is  agreed  on  all  hands  that,  under  the  present 
dispensation,  Christ  has  established  two  corresponding 
ordinances  or  sacraments  :  the  one  is  baptism,  the 
other  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  one  refers  to  the  new 
birth,  the  other  to  the  nurture  and  nourishment  of 
this  new  creature.  All  the  essentials  of  a  positive 
ordinance  or  Christain  sacrament  pertain  alike  to 
both.  Both  have  Christ's  positive  command ;  both 
require  the  use  of  an  external,  material,  and  tangible 
element;  both  are  of  binding  and  continual  obliora- 
tion  ;  both  have  the  divine  promise  of  grace  to  those 
who  attend  properly  upon  them  ;  both  are  intended 
to  exhibit  and  apply  the  gospel  to  the  souls  of  men; 
both  are  equally  solemn,  sacred,  and  unalterable.  The 
one  is  denoted  by  the  word  deipnon,  supper  ;  the  other 
by  the  word  bapfisma,  baptism.  Baplisma  does  not 
more  describe  the  nature  or  essential  constituents  of 
the  one,  than  deipnon  does  of  the  other.  It  is  no  more 
allowable,  then,  for  us  to  depart  from  the  strict  meaning 
of  the  word  deipnon  in  our  celebration  of  the  Holy 
Supper,  than  to  depart  from  the  strict  meaning  of 
baplisma  in  baptizing.  The  stringency  or  laxity  tliat 
is  allowable  must  be  the  same  in  both  cases;  for  they 
are  exactly  analogous.     If  it  is  not  necessary  to  keep 


204       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD's  SUPPER. 

to  the  literal  meaning  of  one,  it  is  not  necessary  to 
keep  to  the  literal  meaning  of  tlie  other.  Liberty  in 
the  one  case  presupposes  and  implies  the  existence 
of  the  right  to  exercise  the  same  liberty  in  the  other 
case.     Tliis  can  not  be  successfully  disputed. 

'*  Supposing,  then,  that  the  immersionists  are  right 
in  claiming  that  the  mode  is  implied  in  bapfis?na,  if 
Ave  can  show  that  they,  in  common  with  the  church 
generally,  from  the  beginning  until  now,  consider 
themselves  under  no  obligation  to  keep  to  the  plain, 
literal  import  of  the  word  deipiion  in  the  Holy  Supper, 
that  fact  alone,  without  any  other  argument,  is  a  sat- 
isfactory and  unanswerable  ground  upon  which  to 
claim  exemption  from  the  rigid  adherence  to  the 
literal  meaning  of  haptisma  in  baptizing.  Sound 
authority  in  one  case  is  sound  authority  in  every 
parallel  case. 

"  What,  then,  is  the  meaning  of  deipnonf  There 
is  little  room  for  diversity  as  to  the  true  answer.  It 
denotes  a  full  meal,  and  that  an  evening  meal.  All 
authorities  agree  that  it  stands  for  the  principal  meal 
of  the  Greeks  and  Romans.  Three  names  of  meals 
occur  in  tlie  Homeric  writings,  in  the  following  order  : 
ar'iston,  deipnon,  and  dorpon.  The  Greeks  of  a  later 
age  partook  of  three  meals,  called  akraiisnia,  arisfon, 
and  deipnon.  The  last,  which  corresponds  to  the 
dorpon  of  the  Homeric  poems,  was  the  evening  meal, 
or  dinner ;  the  ariston  was  the  lunch ;  and  the  akra- 
tisma,  which  answers  to  the  ariston  of  Homer,  was  the 
early  meal,  or  breakfast.  The  akratisina  was  eaten 
immediately  after  rising  in  the  morning.  Next  fol- 
lowed the  ariston^  or  lunch  ;  but  the  time  at  which  it 
was  taken  is  uncertain  :  Snidas  says  it  was  taken 
about  the  third  hour;  that  is,  about  nine  o'clock  in 
the  morniniT^ ;  but  this  account  does  not  a*i;ree  with  the 
statements  of  other  ancient  writers.  We  may  con- 
clude, from  many  circumstances,  that  this  meal  nyus 


MR.  quinter's  third  address.  205 

enten  aV>out  tlie  midille  of  the  day,  and  answered  to 
tlic  ll(Hnan  pnindlutn.  The  priticipul  meal,  however, 
was  tlie  deipnon.  It  ^Y■as  usually  eaten  rather  late  in 
the  day;  frequently  not  before  sunset.  (Smith's 
Antiquities,  pages  303,  304.)  Dr.  Halley  says  : 
*Long  before  the  apostolic  age,  deipnon  had  become 
regularly  and  constantly  the  evening  meal.  Nitzch 
says  that  it  denoted  the  principal  meal.  French  does 
the  same.  Hence,  all  great  entertainments  were  called 
deipna,  and  always  came  off  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
day,  or  at  night.  "  The  use  of  the  word  in  the  New 
Testament  corresponds  exactly  to  these  representa- 
tions, as  may  be  seen  from  the  following  passages : 
*  ''  Matthew,  xxiii :  6  :  '  They  make  broad  their  phy- 
lacteries, and  enlarge  the  borders  of  their  garments, 
and  love  the  uppermost  rooms  at  feasts '  [deipnois], 

'*  Luke,  xiv  :  12  :  '  When  thou  makest  a  dinner, 
[aristori]  or  a  supper  [deipnoii]^  call  not  thy  friends.' 

'•Luke,  xiv:  16:  'A  certain  man  made  a  great 
supper  [deipjionl,  and  bade  many.'  (See  also  verses 
17  and  24,  and  cliapter  xx :  46.). 

''John  xii :  2:  'There  they  made  him  a  supper, 
[deipnon)  and  Martha  served.'  John,  xiii :  20  ;  and 
xxi :  20,  the  word  occurs  in  the  same  sense. 

'•  We  might  further  illustrate  this  meaning  from  the 
Septuagint,  in  such  passages  as  Daniel,  v:  1  :  '  Bel- 
shazzar  the  king  made  a  great  feast  [deipnon,  supper,] 
to  a  thousand  of  his  lords  ;'  but  it  is  unnecessary. 

"Deipnon  means  a  full  meal,  a  banquet,  ^ plenlifnl, 
sup|)er,  an  ample  repast,  the  prineipid  and  most  abun- 
dant meal  of  the  day ;  wriich  occurred  in  the  evening, 
between  midday  and  midnight.  Dr.  Fuller  says  that 
deipnon  W'ds,  among  the  ancients,  '  the  most  social 
and  convivial  of  all  their  repasts,'  and  that  '  the  word 
means,  a  banquet,  a  feast.'     (Page  226.) 

"It  is  also  to  be  observe^l  that  the  Lord's  Supper, 
or  deipnon^  was  instituted  and  tirst  celebrated  at  night. 


206 

Not  only  the  meaning  of  the  word  which  was  chosen 
described  it,  but  the  very  hour  of  its  appointment  and 
first  observnnce,  connected  the  Lord's  Supper  with  the 
evening — the  close  of  the  day. 

"  According  to  the  plain,  evident,  and  well  estab- 
lished meaning  of  words,  therefore,  and  sustained  by 
circumstances,  two  tilings  would  be  assigned  to  the 
sacramental  deipnon:  first,  it  must  be  a  full  and  plen- 
teous meal  ;  and,  second,  it  must  be  eaten  in  the 
evening.  A  fragment  of  bread  a  half  inch  square, 
and  a  sip  of  wine  that  would  scarcely  fill  a  teaspoon, 
is  not  a  deipnon^  as  the  Greeks  used  that  word,  any 
more  than  sprinkling  a  few  drops  of  water  on  a  man's 
face  is  an  immersion  of  him.  Neither  do  we  eat  our 
suppers  in  the  morning.  It  is  as  great  a  contradiction 
in  terms  and  confusion  of  idens  to  speak  of  supping  in 
the  morning,  as  to  speak  of  plunging  a  man  by  pouring 
Water  on  him. 

"  Suppose,  then,  that  we  were  to  set  ourselves  to 
reasoning  on  the  word  deipnon  as  the  immersionists 
reason  on  the  word  baptisma ;  we  might  make  out  a 
case,  and  convict  the  Christian  world  in  all  ages  of 
disobedience  to  the  plain  command  of  Christ.  They 
say  that  haptisma  means  a  plain  immersion,  and 
nothing  else ;  we  say,  and  still  more  certainly  does 
deipnon  mean  an  evening  repast.  If  the  one  denotes 
MODE,  the  other  with  more  certainty  denotes  time. 
They  insist  that  haptisma  includes  in  itself  a  total 
covering  up  of  the  wiiole  body  in  water;  we  say,  with 
far  more  reason  and  confidence,  that  deipno)i  inchides 
in  itself  the  provision  and  participation  of  the  Largest 
and  fullest  meal.  If  the  one  requires  water  enough  to 
cover  a  man,  the  other,  with  greater  certainty,  requires 
food  enough  to  fill  a  man,  and  as  many  as  are  to  par- 
take of  it.  The  words  chosen  in  both  are  the  words 
of  God,  an<l  he  knew  what  he  meant  by  them.  And 
if  the  commoii  Greek  usage  of  haptisma  was  to  denote 


MR.   QUINTEll's  THIRD    ADDRESS.  207 

immersion,  and  we  are  to  get  God's  meaning  in  that 
word  from  tlie  common  Greek  usage,  the  common 
Greek  usnge  of  dcipnon  must  also  give  us  the  idea 
attached  to  it  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

"  What,  then,  has  been  the  universal  practice  of  the 
church  with  regard  to  the  sacramentnl  deipnon  ?  Have 
there  been  any  denominations  of  Christians  who  be- 
lieved, or  held  it  necessary  to  a  right  communion,  that 
it  should  be  celebrated  in  the  evening,  or  that  it  should 
be  made  a  full  meal?  All  parties,  Baptists  with  all 
others,  are  continually  celebrating  the  deipnon  of  the 
Saviour  in  the  morning ;  and  none  of  them  provide 
for  it  more  than  a  bit  of  bread  and  a  sip  of  wine  for 
each  communicant.  We  do  not  find  fault  with  this. 
We  believe  that  it  adequately  fulfills  the  meaning  and 
the  spirit  of  the  words  of  Jesus  on  this  subject.  But, 
arguing  as  our  modern  immersionists  do,  we  might 
say,  with  holy  indignation,  'What  right  have  men  to 
trample  upon  and  ignore  the  time  selected  by  the 
Saviour  in  the  institution  of  the  Sacrament,  and 
ingrained  into  the  name  given  it  by  the  spirit  of  inspi- 
ration ?  What  authority  have  they  to  make  a  pitiable 
abortion  of  a  breakfast  or  a  dinner,  of  what,  accord- 
ing to  the  plain,  common  import  of  God's  word,  is 
to  be  an  abundant  and  plenteous  supper?'  If  we  can 
not  dispense  with  the  mode  in  baptism,  we  can  not 
dispense  with  the  time  in  its  corresponding  sacrament. 
If  we  can  not  have  baptism  without  immersion,  for 
the  same  alleged  reason  we  can  not  have  a  supper  in 
the  morning,  or  a  deij^non  for  a  hundred  guests  with- 
out a  large  supply  of  wine  and  bread.  If  time  and 
quantity  are  nothing  in  the  one  sacrament,  the  name 
and  circumstances  of  which  call  for  it,  mode  and 
quantity  are  nothing  in  the  other  sacrament — the  name 
and  circumstances  of  which  demand  it  still  less. 

*  *  *  "If  they  [Baptists]  will  insist  that  we 
pervert  and  violate  an  ordinance  of  Christ  by  decliu- 


208       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD's  SUPPER. 

ing  to  be  immersed  or  to  immerse,  we  take  the  liberty 
of  '  holding  the  mirror  up  to  nature,'  that  their  flagrant 
inconsistency  may  be  seen.  They  have  expunged  the 
elements  of  time  and  quantity  from  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, and  think  they  have  done  no  violence  to  the 
literal  exposition  and  the  plain  meaning  of  the  words 
certainly  containing  them  ;  and  it  will  not  answer  for 
them  now  to  turn  about  and  condemn  and  excommu- 
nicate us  for  thinking  it  non-essential  as  to  how  water 
is  applied  in  baptism.  Let  them  ponder  first  those 
searching  words  of  Jesus,  '  Why  beholdest  thou  the 
mote  that  is  in  thy  brother's  eye,  but  considerest  not 
the  beam  that  is  in  thine  own  eye?  Thou  hypocrite, 
first  cast  out  the  beam  out  of  thine  own  eye,  and  then 
shait  thou  see  clearly  to  cast  out  the  mote  out  of  thy 
brother's  eye.' 

"The  immersionist  attempts  to  defend  the  peculi- 
arity of  his  procedure  by  asserting  that  mode  is  in- 
separable from  baptisma^  and  therefore  belongs  essen- 
tially to  the  ordinance.  We  say  that  is  an  argument 
criminating  himself,  and  by  proving  too  much,  recoils 
upon  his  own  head.  Time  and  an  abundance  of  pro- 
visions, are  as  necessarily  included  in  deii^non  as  it  is 
possible  iovmode  to  be  in  baptisma ;  and  when  he  gives 
us  the  warrant  for  his  liberty  to  eject  time  from  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  for  his  substitution  of  a  little  frag- 
ment of  bread  and  a  little  sip  of  wine  for  a  full  meal, 
we  shall  be  prepared  to  establish  our  right  to  dispense 
with  his  favorite  mode  in  the  administration  of  bap- 
tism. Until  he  does  this,  all  his  philological  reason- 
ings on  the  word  baptisma  arc  completely  nullified, 
and,  in  all  justice,  forever  silenced.  We  need  no 
other  argument.  This  in  itself  sufficiently  disposes 
of  the  whole  question.  It  winds  up  the  whole  con- 
troversy in  a  nut-sholl.  It  puts  the  dis})ute  in  a  light 
in  which  there  is  no  room  for  philological  mystifica- 
tion, and  which  may  be  easily  underjitood.     it  cou- 


MU.    QUINTEr's    TIIIKD    ADDllKSS.  209 

cedes  tlie  Avliole  baptist  assumption,  aiul  yet  com- 
pletely confounds  the  inference  founded  upon  it,  and 
leaves  the  cause  of  immersionism  in  inextricable  em- 
barrassments. It  is  an  unanswered  and  unanswerable 
argument."  [Seiss,  "The  Baptist  System  Examined, 
page  277,  seq.) 

My  friend  can  not  but  see  at  once  in  what  a  di- 
lemma he  is  placed  as  an  immersionist,  by  the  position 
he  assumes  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  \_Time 
expired. 


[MR.  M'CONNELL'S  FOURTH  ADDRESS.] 

Gentlemen  Moderators — I  am  not  sorry,  by  any 
means,  so  far  as  this  discussion  is  concerned,  nor  so 
far  as  its  eifect  upon  the  propositions  at  issue  maybe 
concerned,  that  it  should  go  abroad.  But  I  am  sur- 
prised that  my  friend  should  read  a  long,  labored  ar- 
gument made  for  the  pur[)Ose  of  confuting  the  Bap- 
tists. The  book  in  which  it  is  found  has  an  extensive 
circulation.  Pedobaptists  everywhere  read  it  with 
joy  ;  and  now  we  are  making  another  book,  into  which 
my  friend  thrusts  this  pedobaptist  argument,  and  thus 
gives  it  additional  circulation. 

My  friend  says,  or  the  author  from  which  he  quotes 
says,  that  deipnon  means  a  full  meal.  I  want  to 
know  how  much  a  man  must  eat  in  order  to  constitute 
a  meal.  I  contend  that  deipnon  does  not  contain  in 
itself  any  intimation  of  the  quantity  to  be  eaten.  It 
will  describe  a  meal  sufficient  for  a  thousand  people ;  it 
may  desciibe  a  meal  in  which  there  is  but  scant  allow- 
ance for  one  man.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  called  deip- 
non  ;  I  do  not  question  that  at  all.  And  in  instituting 
that  supper,  our  Lord  commanded  bread  to  be  eaten, 
and  wine  to  be  drank ;  but  he  did  not  say  how  much 
bread,  or  how  much  wine.  If  we  do  not  eat  enough, 
U 


210 

if  my  brother  M^ill  convince  us  of  that  fact,  and  shov/ 
us  just  how  much  we  should  eat,  we  will  change  our 
ways,  and  partake  accordingly.  But  that  is  a  point 
the  Saviour  did  not  determine.  The  apostle  Paul  has 
admonished  us  upon  one  point,  viz :  not  to  eat  to  sat- 
isfy hunger,  nor  to  drink  to  excess.  These  points  are 
guai'ded. 

My  friend  says,  "  All  great  meals  are  deipnons.'* 
Well,  I  will  admit  that.  But  things  may  be  great  in 
widely  different  senses.  Some  men  are  great  physi- 
cally ;  some  great  intellectually  ;  some  great  morally. 
A  man's  greatness  is  not  always  determined  by  his 
bodily  proportions.  So  the  greatness  of  a  meal,  I 
apprehend,  is  not  always  to  be  determined  b}''  the 
amount  of  provisions  constituting  it.  Much  depends 
upon  the  associations  connected  with  them.  What 
constitutes  the  greatness  of  the  Independence  dinner 
we  eat  on  the  Fourth  of  July,  but  the  associations 
connected  with  it?  If  this  be  true,  I  ask  if  there  ever 
was  a  meal  prepared  that  so  well  deserves  the  name  of 
"great"  as  that  which  Jesus  spread  before  his  disci- 
ples on  that  sorrowful  night  of  his  betrayal?  It  was 
great,  because  the  elements  eaten  represented  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  blessed  Redeemer  ;  it  was  great 
because  therein  the  disciples  partook  of  the  life  of  the 
world,  the  bread  that  came  down  from  heaven  ;  it  was 
great  because  it  was  to  commemorate  the  most  soul- 
stirring  events  the  world  ever  knew,  or  ever  was  to 
know  ;  the  death  of  the  SoN  OF  GoD,  who  had  left  the 
realms  of  glory  to  rescue  and  redeem  our  race,  and 
the  second  coming  of  our  Saviour  in  the  clouds  of 
heaven.  Before  the  greatness  of  that  sup|)er,  all  the 
meals  and  festivals,  from  time  immemorial  until  now, 
fade  away  into  insignificance  like  stars  before  the 
rising  sun.  If  all  great  meals  are  dcipnon^  this,  above 
all  others,  is  entitled  to  that  name.  An  author  quoted 
by  my  friend  says,  the  Lord's  Supper  is  for  the  soul. 


MR.  m'connell's  fourth  address.         211 

True,  to  the  letter.  To  think  of  Him  Avho  instituted 
it,  wliat  he  was,  and  what  he  has  done  for  us,  is  indeed 
a  feast  to  the  soul. 

My  friend,  in  contending  for  a  full  meal,  says  that 
any  church  neglecting  to  eat  such  a  meal  in  connec- 
tion with  the  emblems,  the  bread  and  wine,  is  not  an 
apostolic  church.  Thus  he  claims  that  to  be  apos- 
tolic which  the  apostle  Paul  indignantly  denounces; 
for  Paul  complains  of  the  church  at  Corinth  because 
they  did  eat  a  "full  meal "  at  church,  or  at  their  gath- 
erings for  religious  worship  ;  they  took  provisions  ia 
large  quantities,  and  ate  to  satisfy  their  physical 
"wants.  '"This,"  said  Paul,  "is  not  to  eat  the  Lord'3 
Supper ;"  and  commanded  that,  "  if  any  man  hunger, 
let  him  eat  at  home."  And  now  my  friend  comes  and 
argues  in  behalf  of  a  full  meal  for  the  satisfaction  of 
physical  hunger — the  very  thing  against  which  Paul 
launched  his  bitterest  denunciations.  "They  ate," 
Paul  says,  "not  discerning  the  Lord's  body."  And 
no  wonder  they  did  not  discern  the  Lord's  body ;  for 
in  that  meal  there  was  nothing  to  represent  the  Lord's 
body.  But  how,  and  where,  was  the  Lord's  body  to 
be  discerned  ?  The  Lord  himself  tells  us  :  he  took 
bread,  and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  said,.  "Take, 
eat;  tlds  is  my  body."  And  again:  "Whosoever 
shall  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup  of  the  Lord 
unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
the  Lord;  for  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily, 
eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  to  himself,  not  discern- 
ing the  Lord's  body.''  Here,  in  the  bread  and  wine, 
the  Lord's  body  was  to  be  discerned,  and  nowhere 
else.  In  eating  an  ordinary  meal,  the  Lord's  body 
was  not  to  be  discerned  at  all ;  this  was  "  not  to  eat  the 
Lord's  Supper;"  but  that  which  the  Lord  himself  said 
was  his  body  and  blood — that  was  the  Lord's  Supper. 

One  more  point  I  wish  to  place  before  you.  i\\ 
I   Corinthians,  x :  16-21  :    Christians,   partakers   of 


212       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD's  SUPPER. 

the  bread   and  wine,  are   exhorted  to   abstain   from 
that    which   is    sacrificed   to   idols,    as    thereby    they 
would   have   fellowship    with   idols.      And   mark   the 
language :   "  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it 
not  the  communion  of  the  blood   of   Christ  ?      The 
bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the 
body  of  Christ  ?    For  we,  being  many,  are  one  bread  " 
[one  meal],  "and  one  body  "  [one  church].     And  now, 
Israel,  after  the  flesh  is  introduced,  by  way  of  illus- 
trating an  institution  of  the  Christian  dispensation  by 
an  institution  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation:  "Are  not 
they   which   eat   of   the    sacrifices,  partakers   of   the 
altar?"     That  is,  they  may  rightfully  claim  a  partici- 
pation in  all  the  advantages   to  be  derived  from  the 
sacrifice  that  is  placed  upon  the  altar.     So  we,  by  par- 
taking of  the  bread  and  wine,  may  claim  a  participa- 
tion in  its  advantages — in  that  which  it  represents, 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.     Then  Paul  warns  the 
Corinthians  against  eating  the  things  which  the  Gen- 
tiles sacrifice  to  devils,  because  thereby  they  would 
have  fellowship  with  devils,  becoming  participants  in 
idolatry.     And  the  twenty-first  verse  is  built  up  after 
the  model  of  the  sixteenth,  an  emphatic  repetition, 
with  an  assertion  added — "  Ye  can  not  drink  the  cup 
of  the  Lord,  and  the  cup  of  devils ;  ye  can  not  be  par- 
takers of  the  Lord's  table  and  of  the  table  of  devils." 
Now,  the  cup  of  the  Lord,  in  the  twenty-first  verse, 
is  the  cup  of  blessing,  the  communion  of  the  blood  of 
Christ,  as  mentioned  in  the  sixteenth  verse;  and  par- 
taking of  the  Lord's  table,  in  the  twenty-first  verse, 
is  partaking  of  the  bread,  the  communion  of  the  body 
of  Christ,  as  mentioned  in  the  sixteenth  verse.     And 
all  this  argument  of  the  apostle  is  irrelevant,  and  with- 
out force  or  sense,  unless  partaking  of  the  bread  and 
wine  is  partaking  of  the  boily  and  blood  of  our  Loid; 
partaking  of  the  Lord's  tabic  is  partaking  of  the  Lord's 
{Supper. 


MR.    M'CONNELL'S   fourth    ADDRESS.  213 

Thore  are  otlicr  things  I  mii^ht  say,  other  nrgumentg 
I  might  nihhice;  but  the  day  is  drawing  toward  its 
close,  and  I  wish  to  dehiy  no  longer  than  is  absohitely 
necessary  this  already  weary  audience.  So  I  will 
close  with  a  brief  summary  of  what  I  have  attempted 
to  do,  whether  I  have  done  it  or  not. 

My  first  argument  to  sustain  the  proposition  that 
the  elements  of  bread  and  wine  taken  at  the  commun- 
ion constitute  the  Lord's  Supper,  was  based  upon  the 
declarations  of  our  Lord  himself,  as  set  forth  in  the 
sixth  chapter  of  John's  testimony,  thirty-first  to  fifty- 
eighth  verse.  I  presented  four  distinct  syllogisms  based 
upon  that  passage,  the  third  number  of  each  of  which 
is  the  Lor(l's  Supper.  I  need  not  repeat  them  to  you, 
but  only  draw  your  attention  to  them.  You  will  remem- 
ber my  friend  Quinter  said  he  had  no  objection  to 
make  to  anything  I  offered  in  my  first  speech,  the  ar- 
guments of  which  were  based  upon  this  sixth  chapter 
of  John.  Note,  then,  that  that  argument  is  before 
you,  untouched,  unassailed. 

My  second  argument  was  based  upon  this  eleventh 
chapter  of  I  Corinthians.  This  Ave  need  not  recap- 
itulate; the  whole  matter  is  fresh  in  your  memories. 
On  the  argument  based  upon  these  two  passages  of 
Scripture,  with  nothing  anywhere  to  controvert  it,  we 
are  willing  to  rest  the  whole  question. 

One  point  I  wish  to  place  plainly  bef)re  your  minds: 
while  I  have  dealt  in  Scripture,  without  detailing  the 
opinions  of  commentators  or  the  surmises  of  histo- 
rians, my  friend  has  read,  in  opposition  to  the  propo- 
sition, the  comments  and  suppositions  of  men  far  re- 
moved from  those  times.  I  have  laid  before  you  the 
Word  of  God ;  he  has  spent  the  most  of  his  time  in 
presenting  to  you  the  opinions  and  comments  of  the 
religious  and  partisan  world  upon  that  Word.  Divine 
authority  and  human  authority  are  placed  before  you 


214       DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD's  SUPPER. 

in  contrast ;  we  are  willing  it  should  be  so — we  are 
not  fearful  of  the  result. 

I  desire  to  say  another  thing  in  reference  to  this 
matter.  I  am  aware  that  I  have  manifested  a  o-reat 
deal  of  feelino^  and  earnestness  at  times  durinfTj  the 
discussion  of  this  question.  But  this  is  a  subject 
which  calls  out  all  the  earnestness  of  my  nature. 
There  are  associated  with  it  recollections  of  holy  and 
glorious  events,  whose  contemplation  stir  my  soul  to 
its  utmost  depths. 

There  is  a  point  on  our  globe,  naturalists  inform  us, 
near  the  equator,  on  the  Andes  of  Quito,  where  all  the 
climates  of  the  world  are  superimposed  or  elevated  one 
above  another  successively.  From  the  bottom  of  a  moun- 
tain, where  the  naturalist  begins  his  ascent,  he  passes 
them  all  in  succession,  till  he  reaches  the  lofty  precipice, 
where  eternal  winter  begins,  and  the  sharply-defined 
cordon  of  ice  encircles  the  mountain,  the  bell-shaped 
summit  of  which,  covered  with  perpetual  snow,  shoots 
at  last  with  dazzling  splendor  high  into  the  illiniitabl'^ 
heaven.  Here  all  the  climates  of  the  world,  with  their 
vegetable  products,  are  placed  at  his  feet,  and  over- 
head he  sees  at  a  glance  all  the  stars  that  shine  be- 
tween the  North  Pole  and  the  Si)uthern  Cross.  All 
the  magnificent  and  brilliant  phenomena  of  heaven 
and  earth  are  before  him,  from  the  Ursa  Major  to  the 
shining  Magellan  clouds ;  from  icy  Cape  North  to  the 
Cape  Horn  south. 

There  is  in  the  religious,  as  in  the  natural  sphere, 
a  post  of  elevation — a  point  that  form-s  the  equatorial 
region  of  revealed  religion — the  Andes  of  Christianity. 
This  post  of  precedence  is  where  the  Son  of  God  ap- 
pears to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself.  At 
the  bottom  of  this  "  Mount  of  God,"  where  the  student 
begins  his  ascent,  lies  the  bleeding  lamb  of  Abel ;  then 
the  offering  up  of  Isaac;  the  Paschal  lamb  in  Egypt, 
higher  up  the  mountain-side  is  seen  the  sin-oftering, 


215 

then  the  day  of  atonement,  the  scape-goat,  the  wave 
offering,  the  second  first  fruits,  and,  in  short,  all  the 
rites,  institutions,  and  ceremonies  of  the  former  dis- 
pen.sations,  as  the  earnest  seeker  after  truth  makes 
his  way  through  God's  dealings  with  and  revelations 
to  the  sons  of  men,  rise  in  grand  succession  one  above 
another,  until  he  reaches  the  summit — TiiE  Df.ath  of 
Christ.  Here  all  that  occurred  during,  and  all  per- 
taining to,  the  former  economy,  with  their  lessons  of 
salvation,  are  placed  at  his  feet;  and  above  him,  in 
the  glorious  future,  he  beholds  the  Saviour's  triumph 
over  death,  hell,  and  the  grave ;  hia  ascension  to  the 
right  hand  of  the  Majesty  in  the  heavens;  the  sprink- 
ling of  his  blood  before  the  mercy-seat;  his  receiving 
the  reins  of  universal  empire  and  the  priestly  robes ; 
standing  here  with  his  eye  and  ear  aloft,  he  hears  the 
Eternal  One  say,  "  Thou  art  my  Son  ;  this  day  have  I 
begotten  thee  ;  sit  thou  at  my  right  hand  until  I  make 
thine  enemies  thy  footstool.  For  thou  art  a  priest 
forever  after  the  order  of  Melchesidec." 

He  finds  himself  present,  by  faith,  on  the  memor- 
able Pentecost,  and  beholds  another  messenger  from 
the  eternal  world — i.  e.,  the  Holy  Spirit ;  the  Gospel  is 
preached ;  three  thousand  hear,  believe,  and  are  bap- 
tized into  Christ.  From  this  point  of  observation,  all 
the  institutions  of  Christianity,  like  the  stars  of  heaven, 
are  spread  out  before  us,  and  our  attention  is  directed 
to  Christ's  coming  in  his  glory,  and  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  holy  angels,  and  our  gathering 
together  unto  him  to  behold  and  partake  of  his  glory. 

When  the  intelligent  and  reflecting  child  of  God 
sits  down  at  the  communion  and  solemnly  partakes  of 
these  sacred  symbols  (the  bread  and  wine)  of  Christ's 
death,  he  is,  by  faith,  standing  upon  this  Andes  of 
Cliristiauity,  beholding,  wondering,  and  adoring;  £^g 
oh!  what  an   intellectual  and  spiritual  feast  d-- 


216 

soul  enjoy,  while  he  exclaims,  this  is  indeed  the  Lord's 
deipnon^  the  great  Supper,  the  Lord's  Supper. 

I  ought,  perhaps,  to  have  said  at  the  beginning  that 
this  is  my  closing  speech.  In  conclusion,  allow  me  to 
say  that  I  am  thankful  for  the  kind  attention  you  have 
manifested;  more  than  thankful,  if  you  please,  for — 
what  I  believe  to  be  true — the  fact  that  you  have  all 
felt  a  deep  and  abiding  interest  in  ascertaining  what 
the  truth  of  God  in  this  matter  really  is,  in  order  that 
you  may  properly  worship  our  heavenly  Father,  in 
attending  upon  this  solemn  institution  ordained  by 
him,  f(U'  the  purpose  of  reminding  us  of  his  death,  and 
pointing  us  to  his  second  coming.     \_Time  expired. 


[MR.  QUINTER'S  FOURTH  ADDRESS.] 

Friendly  Moderators — I  do  most  sincerely  wish 
that  my  friend  and  I,  and  all  of  you  with  us,  were 
agreed  upon  every  point  of  Christian  faith  and  prac- 
tice, as  completely  as  we  are  agreed  upon  the  impor- 
tance of  the  solemn  ordinance  of  the  Lord  that  is  before 
us  for  consideration.  I  am  gratified  at  the  attention 
and  the  solemnity  that  has  been  manifested  during  the 
discussion  of  this  subject. 

My  friend,  in  discussing  the  meaning  of  the  word 
deipno7i,  made  quite  a  speech,  to  show  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  indeed  a  great  feast;  that  the  most  impor- 
tant matters  are  involved  in  it ;  that  the  most  glorious 
consequences  arise  from  it.  As  regards  all  these 
points,  I  am  agreed.  Nevertheless,  the  meaning  of 
the  word  itself  must  be  kept  in  view.  We  must  not 
be  led  away  from  the  main  question,  by  dazzling  fig- 
tires  of  rhetoric,  or  glowing  pictures  of  happy  results, 
to  other  matters,  which,  though  important,  are  inci- 
dental. My  friend  is  pursuing  the  course  followed  by 
the  pedobapti?ts?  who,  when  floored  in  argument  in 


MU.    QUINTEIVS    FOUUTII    ADDRESS.  217 

reference  to  the  meaning;  of  the  word  haplizo,  proceed 
to  tell  us  "whjit  hleased  results  follow  the  application 
of  a  few  drops  of  water  by  sprinklitig — how  happy  the 
subjects  feel,  and  so  on.  All  this  sounds  very  well, 
and  is  probably  true — so  far  as  it  goes ;  but  it  does 
not  go  far  enough  to  constitute  an  argument  upon  the 
subject.  We  must  come  back,  as  my  friend  will  agree 
with  me,  to  the  literal  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo, 
in  its  ordinary  application.  Precisely  in  the  same 
way  we  must  look  at  this  word  deipnon.  Its  meaning 
does  not  depend  upon  its  consequences,  or  the  feel- 
ings of  those  who  partake  cff  the  ordinance;  it  de- 
pends upon  the  usage  of  the  writers  and  sneakers  of 
the  language  in  which  it  is  found.  Looking  at  it  in 
this  light,  we  see  th.at  it  means  a  meal;  hence,  that 
kurios  deipnon^  is  the  Lord's  meal.  Looking  at  it  in 
this  light,  we  can  but  associate  a  meal  with  it.  Now, 
I  do  not  think  that  a  piece  of  bread  half  an  inch 
square,  and  a  small  sip  of  wine,  are  ever,  in  ordinary 
language,  called  '•'a  meal."  Furthermore,  I  have 
proved — at  least,  I  think  I  have  proved,  for  I  mean  to 
be  modest  (I  will  not  say,  as  modest  as  my  friend) — 
I  think  I  have  proved,  in  support  of  the  argument 
based  upon  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word  deipnon^ 
"a  meal,"  that  the  Christians  of  the  apostolic  church 
did  have  a  meal — a  feast.  My  friend  does  not  at- 
tempt to  prove  that  the  emblems  of  bread  and  wine 
are  that  feast,  or  that  tliey  are  a  feast  at  ull.  It 
would  be  a  strange,  a  glaring  perversion  of  language 
to  call  them  so.  Then  I  argue  that  a  church  which 
has  not  a  feast  or  meal  in  connection  A^ith  the  em- 
blems, is  not  an  apostolic  church — is  not  apostolic  in 
its  organization,  in  its  manner  of  proceeding  in  its 
worship  and  service.  The  argument  is  before  you; 
here  are  the  end:)leiiis ;  here  is  a  meal  partaken  of  by 
the  apostolic  church;  now,  which  is  the  Lord's  meal, 
the  meal  itself,  or  the  emblems,  which  are  not  a  meal  ? 


218  DEBATE   ON   THE   LORD's   SUPPER. 

Which  corresponds  best  with  the  meaning  of  the  word 
deipnon,  a  feast — the  feast,  or  the  emblems,  which  by 
no  stretch  of  hinsjuaf]i;e  can  be  called  a  feast  ?  We 
have  seen,  and  my  friend  does  not  and  can  not  deny, 
that  the  word  deipnoii  means  a  meal — yet  he  applies 
here,  in  this  one  exceptional  case,  to  something  that  is 
not  a  meal — and  that  when,  in  connection  with  the 
emblems,  a  meal  is  proven  to  have  existed,  to  which 
my  friend  refuses  to  apply  it.  And  he  can  give  no 
reason  for  refusing  to  appl}^  the  Greek  word  meaning 
a  feast,  to  the  feast,  and  insisting  upon  applying  it  to 
that  which  is  not  a  feast?. 

My  friend  has  called  your  attention  to  the  bread 
mentioned  in  the  tenth  chapter  of  I  Corinthians. 
That  unquestionably  refers  to  the  bread  of  the  com- 
munion. But  the  word  "  bread"  is  used,  because  bread 
is  meant;  and  a  few  verses  after,  the  word  ''cup"  is 
used,  because  the  cup  is  meant;  so  we  contend  that 
everywhere  the  Lord  says  what  he  means,  and  means 
what  he  says  ;  and  when  he  says  a  "  meal,"  he  means 
a  meal.  The  only  argument  my  friend  can  find  in 
that  chapter  is  an  argument  against  himself.  Besides, 
the  term,  "  Lord's  Supper,"  occurs  but  once,  and  that 
in  connection  with  events  and  circumstances  which 
absolutely  require  that  we  should  give  it  the  meaning 
of  a  meal.  My  friend  insists  in  interpreting  the  word 
baptizo,  upon  taking  it  in  its  ordinary  and  usual  ac- 
ceptation;  and  he  can  not  evade  the  application  of 
the  same  rule  to  deipnon,  simply  because  so  doing 
would  overset  his  theory  and  practice. 

My  friend  expresses  himself  surprised,  and  regrets 
that  I  should  quote  from  Dr.  Seiss'  work  on  baptism, 
and  so  give  additional  circulation  to  arguments  against 
our  cherished  doctrine  of  immersion.  My  regret  is 
that  my  friend,  and  those  who  occupy  his  position, 
should  hold  to  a  belief  and  jtractice  which  gives  an 
opportunity  for  the  use   and  application  of  such  au 


MR.    QITXTEirs    FOURTH    ADDRESS.  219 

argnmont.  Wlien  my  friend  insists  upon  fi^iving  tlie 
^vord  deiptwn  a  strained,  unusual,  unauthorized  inter- 
pretation, meaning  something  else,  or  something  less, 
than  what  it  always  and  ever^'where  docs  mean,  "a 
meal,"  he  gives  Dr.  Seiss  and  other  pedobaptists  an 
apology  for  giving  to  haptizo  a  similar  unusual,  unau- 
thorized interpretation,  denoting  something  else,  or 
less,  than  immersion.  There  is  no  way  to  evade  Dr. 
Seiss'  argument,  and  at  the  same  time  insist  on  using, 
in  refei'ence  to  deipnon^  the  very  latitude  of  interpre- 
tation we  condemn  in  pedobaptists  in  their  interpre- 
tation of  baptlzo.  We  insist  upon  the  application  of 
the  same  rule  to  deipnon  as  to  baptizo — give  the  word 
its  customary  and  usual  signification. 

Since,  then,  deipnon  means  a  meal,  or  feast;  and 
since  Paul,  and  Peter,  and  Jude,  refer  to  a  meal  or 
feast  in  connection  wjth  the  apostolic  church,  we  give 
the  name,  the  Lord's  Supper,  to  the  meal,  and  call 
the  euiblems  (the  bread  and  wine),  the  communion  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 

[Interruption  by  Mr.  McConnell. — By  your  permis- 
sion, friend  Quinter — My  friend  here  confounds  agape 
and  deipnon;  the  one  refers  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 
the  other  to  the  Feast  of  Charity;  the  latter  is  never 
called  deipnon — the  former  is  never  called  agape;  but 
my  friend  in  his  argument  utterly,  ignores  this  dis- 
tinction. I  am  sure  he  will  pardon  my  calling  his 
attention  to  this  point,  for  it  is  an  important  one.] 

[Mr.  Quinter  continues  :~\  The  point  I  wish  to  make 
is  this  :  the  apostolic  church  had  a  feast  of  charity  ; 
this  my  friend  can  not  deny;  and  I  contend  that  a 
church  that  can  not  point  to  a  similar  feast,  is  not 
apostolic.  Its  pretensions  may  be  as  high  as  heaven  ; 
but  unless  it  can  point  to  something  it  can  call  a  feast 
of  charity,  it  can  not  sustain  its  claims  to  be  apostolic 
in  character  and  practice. 

My  friend  has  boasted  that  he  has  not  quoted  from 


220 

historians  and  commentators,  and  so  on.  I  miixht  say, 
and  I  believe  I  will  sny,  just  here,  I  dwell  a  little  more 
upon  such  smthorities  than  I  otherwise  would,  because 
I  know  that  we,  as  a  denomination,  do  not  stand  very 
high  in  the  world's  opinion  as  regards  our  attainments 
in  literature;  I  know  that  we  are  sometimes  rather 
looked  down  upon  as  wanting  in  intelligence.  That 
we  are  not  all  scholars,  that  many  of  us  unfortunately 
possess  but  a  limited  education,  I  readily  acknowledge. 
But  I  feel  anxious  to  show  to  the  world,  that  upon 
these  identical  points,  concerning  which  we  differ  from 
other  denominations,  the  learned  world  concede  the 
ground  to  us.  When  we  say  we  feel  that  we  must 
have  a  meal  in  addition  to  the  emblems  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ,  in  order  to  celebrate  the  Lord's 
Supper  properly,  the  learned  world  says  we  are  right ; 
the  apostolic  church  had  such  a  meal ;  historians 
point  us  back  to  it;  commentators  find  it  set  forth  in 
the  Scriptures,  and  we  have  quoted  numerous  author- 
ities in  support  of  this  position.  Why  other  denomi- 
nations have  no  such  meal,  they  must  settle  with  their 
God.  We  want  to  get  back  to  the  apostolic  method 
of  worship,  so  far  as  it  is  possible  to  discover  it;  hence 
we  adhere  to  this  apostolic  practice. 

And  we  find  the  same  benefits  to  result  from  the 
practice  now  as  resulted  in  the  primitive  church,  as 
set  forth  by  the  authorities  already  read  to  you.  We 
find  it  to  be  always  one  of  the  special  ways  of  exhib- 
iting friendship  and  Christian  love  ;  of  perpetuating 
and  increasing  it.  In  this  feast  of  charity,  this — 
what  we  believe  to  be — the  Lord's  Supper,  as  we  sit 
side  by  side,  rich  and  poor  together,  feeling  that  we 
are  all  brethren,  all  members  of  one  divine  family, 
love  flows  from  soul  to  soul,  and  we  feel  more  and 
more  of  that  affection,  that  charity,  that  communion 
with  each  other  and  with  our  God,  that  ought  to  char- 
acterizf^  the  church  of  Christ,  and  the  followers  of  our 


MR.    QUINTICk's    FOUKTil    ADUKESS.  221 

common  RtMloemer.  Ilcnce  tlie  liappy  effects  attrib- 
uted to  tliese  seasons  of  communion  by  the  authorities 
I  have  quoted.  One  of  these  ^Yriters  remarked  that 
these  feasts  of  charity  were  the  means  of  rallying  the 
brethren  together,  and  inspiring  them  with  new 
courage  and  zeal.  If  it  had  this  effect  in  the  early 
ages  of  the  church,  the  same  results  are  as  greatly 
needed  to-day.  In  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper,  in 
the  light  in  which  we  view  it,  while  the  sacred  emblems, 
the  bread  and  wine,  representing  the  body  and  blood 
of  the  Saviour,  remind  us  of  his  death  for  us,  and  point 
us  to  his  second  coming.  This  feast  of  love  may  be 
regarded  as  a  representation  of  the  great  Marriage 
Supper  of  the  Lamb,  which  is  to  take  place  when  the 
Saviour  comes,  and  his  people  shall  gather  themselves 
from  the  East,  and  from  the  West,  and  from  the  North, 
an<l  from  the  South,  and  sit  down  in  the  kingdom  of 
God.  O  my  friends,  do  not  believe  that  anything  com- 
manded by  the  Lord  is  a  mere  formality.  If  it  be 
sustained  that  a  thing  is  of  the  Lord,  it  can  not  but 
be  admitted  that  it  must  have  good  efiects,  if  properly 
observed.  And  in  this  ordinance,  this  feast  of  char- 
ity, we  find  there  is  a  power,  there  is  a  benefit,  there 
is  a  utility;  and  for  these  reasons — because  we  be- 
lieve it  to  be  commanded  by  the  Lord,  and  because  we 
have  practically  seen  and  felt  its  beneficial  efi"ects — 
we  contend  for  its  observance  in  accordance  with  the 
custom  of  the  apostolic  church.  I  believe  that  in  all 
things,  the  more  closely  we  adhere  to  the  practices  of 
the  apostolic  church  the  better.  And  if  that  is  to 
be  our  model,  then  we  must  have  a  feast  of  charity ; 
we  must  have  something  else  that  we  can  eat  together 
besides  the  sacred  emblems  of  the  communion.  You 
have  our  argument;  and  we  leave  the  matter  in  your 
hands.  There  are  one  or  two  arguments  I  had  intended 
to  introduce,  but  postponed  them  to  this,  my  concluding 
speech — forgetful,  for  the  moment,  that  I  >Yas  upon 


222  DEBATE    ON   THE   LORD'S    SUPPER. 

the  negative,  and  therefore  could  not,  according  to 
the  rules  of  this  debate,  nor  of  courtesy  and  honor, 
introduce  any  new  matter  in  my  concluding  remarks. 
So  let  the  subject  rest  where  it  is. 

I  feel  thankful,  as  I  have  said  already,  for  the  at- 
tention given  and  the  interest  manifested  in  the  sub- 
ject; and  I  hope  that  not  only  now,  but  when  the 
excitement  connected  with  the  present  occasion  is 
over,  the  subject  will  receive  your  sober,  serious,  and 
unprejudiced  consideration.  [The  discussion  closed 
here,  at  the  request  and  solicitation  of  Mr.  Quinter. — 
N.  A.  M'ConnelL] 


[Note. — This  argument,  and  Elder  McConnell's  re- 
ply, were  not  made  at  the  time  of  discussion,  but 
added  afterward  by  agreement. —  Committee^ 

[MR.  QUINTER'S  SUPPLEMENTARY  ARGUMENT.] 

[The  following  argument,  reserved  by  Mr.  Quinter 
for  his  last  speech,  forgetful  at  the  moment  that  he 
was  on  the  negative  of  the  proposition,  and  could  in- 
troduce no  new  matter  into  his  remarks,  was  after- 
ward written  out,  and  inserted  by  permission  of  his 
opponent,  both  being  desirous  that  tiie  report  of  the 
discussion  should  present  a  complete  view  of  both 
sides  of  the  question.] 

Another  argument  to  prove  that  the  bread  and  wine 
are  not  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  drawn  from  tlie  consid- 
eration that  it  is  positively  declared  that  the  Lord 
took  the  cup  "  after  he  had  supped,"  that  is,  after  he 
had  eaten  the  supper.  The  apostle's  language  is  this  : 
"  And  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  brake  it,  smd 
said.  Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for 
you  :  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  After  the  same 
manner  also   he  took  the  cup,  when  he  had  supped, 


MR.  quinter's  supplementary  argument.     223 

saying,  This  cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my  blood  : 
this  do  ye,  as  often  as  ye  diink  it,  in  remembrance  of 
me."     [I  Corinthians,  xi :  24,  25]. 

Now,  the  sentence,  ''He  took  the  cup  wlien  he  had 
supped,"  is  equivalent  to  saying,  ''  He  took  the  cup 
after  supper  ;"  for  "  supped  "  is  here  equivalent  to 
'•  supper."  Then,  if  he  took  the  cup  after  supper, 
surely  the  cup  was  no  part  of  the  supper.  This  is 
too  phiin  to  be  denied,  or  even  doubted.  Then,  as 
the  cup  is  no  part  of  the  supper,  and  as  the  bread  and 
cup  are  so  closely  joined  together,  it  follows  that  the 
bread  was  likewise  taken  after  supper;  then  it  can 
not  be  any  part  of  the  supper.  It  is  said,  He  took 
the  cup  in  like  manner — i.  e.,  he  took  the  cup  as  he 
had  taken  the  bread.  But  it  is  said  that  he  took  the 
cup  after  supper ;  then  he  also  took  the  bread  after 
supper.  Consequently  they  could  not  have  been  the 
supper. 


[MR.   McCONNELL'S    REPLY.] 

Mr.  Quinter  argues  that  the  bread  and  wine  are  not 
the  Lord's  Supper,  because  it  is  positively  declared 
that  the  Lord  took  the  cup  after  he  had  supped — ^.  e., 
after  he  had  eaten  the  supper.  In  reply,  I  ask,  first, 
what  supper  had  he  eaten? — the  Lord's  Supper?  This 
is  evidently  what  Mr.  Quinter  means  ;  but  did  the 
apostle  mean  this  ?  No.  Before  seeing  what  supper 
tlie  apostle  alludes  to  here,  I  call  your  attention  to 
the  fact  that  Mr.  Qainter  says,  "  After  he  had  eaten 
the  supper;''  whereas  Paul  says,  "After  he  had 
supped.'^  If  "  supped  "  be  equivalent  to  "  eating 
supper,"  Mr.  Quinter  has  no  warrant  for  inserting  the 
definite  article — the  supper.  I  will  now  refer  to  the 
question,  what  su})per  did  the  Lord  eat,  just  before 
iubtituting  the  communion?     I  contend   that  it  was 


224        DEBATE  ON  THE  LORD's  SUPPER. 

the  Jewish  Pasclial  supper.  In  Matthew,  xxvi :  17— 
20,  we  read  :  "Now  the  first  day  of  the  feast  of  un- 
leavened bread,  the  disciples  came  to  Jesus,  saying 
unto  him,  Where  wilt  thou  that  we  prepare  for  thee 
to  eat  the  Passover?  And  he  said.  Go  into  the  city, 
to  such  a  man,  and  say  unto  him,  The  Master  saith, 
my  time  is  at  hand  ;  I  will  keep  the  Passover  at  thy 
house  with  my  disciples.  And  the  disciples  did  as 
Jesus  had  appointed  them  ;  and  thej  made  ready  the 
Passover.  Now  when  the  even  was  come,  he  sat  down 
with  the  twelve."  It  was  at  this  same  supper,  the 
paschal  supper — there  is  no  break  in  the  narrative — 
that  (verse  26)  "  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took  bread, 
and  blessed  it,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  the  disci- 
ples, and  said.  Take,  eat ;  this  is  my  body ;"  and  then 
and  there  the  eucharist  was  instituted.  Now,  if  any- 
thing ever  was  proved,  or  ever  can  be  proved,  1  have 
proved  that  the  supper  after  which  the  communion 
"was  instituted,  was  the  Jewish  Paschal  supper,  and 
therefore  not  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  my  friend  would 
have  you  believe. 

The  next  point  Mr.  Quinter  makes  is  this  :  Assum- 
ing that  the  expression,  '-He  took  the  cup  ivhen  he 
had  supped,'^  is  equivalent  to  ^^  after  he  had  eaten 
supper^''  then,  says  Mr.  Quinter,  if  he  took  the  cup 
after  supper,  the  cup  was  no  part  of  the  supper.  Novv, 
who  has  contended  that  the  cup  was  any  part  of  the 
paschal  supper  ?  Certainly  no  one.  But  does  it 
follow,  as  a  logical  sequence,  that  because  the  bread 
and  wine  were  no  part  of  tiie  Jewish  Paschal  supper, 
therefore  they  were  no  part  of  the  Lord's  Supper? 
Certainly  not.  ^ly  friend  will  not  contend  that  the 
supper  Christ  ate  before  he  instituted  the  communion 
was  the  Lord's  Supper.  And  if  not,  then  there  is  no 
relevancy  in  the  argument  to  ^Yhich  I  am  now  reply- 
ing. But,  even  sliould  he  so  contend,  then  his  con- 
clusions are  false ;  for  I  have  shown  that  that  supper 


225 

wag  the  Jewish  Paschal  supper,  and  not  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

I  conclude  my  reply  to  this  argument  by  remark- 
inf; — 

1.  Since  there  is  an  institution  in  the  church  of 
Christ  called  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  and  since  the  supper 
that  Christ  ate  with  his  disciples  before  instituting  the 
communion  was  the  Jewish  Paschal  supper,  and  in  no 
sense  the  Lord's  Supper ;  and  since  the  disciples  were 
commanded  to  partake  of  the  bread  and  wine  in  re- 
membrance of  him  ;  and  since  no  other  elements  are 
anywhere  commanded  by  him  to  be  taken  ;  we  are 
forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  bread  and  wine  con- 
stitute the  Lord's  Supper. 

2.  The  Jewish  Passover  went  into  disuse  immedi- 
ately after  Ciirist  partook  of  it,  the  night  on  which  he 
was  betrayed.  It  had  been  in  use  as  a  type  for  1527 
years ;  but  the  anti-type  having  come,  there  was  no 
further  use  for  the  type.  But  since  there  was  a  supper 
connected  with  the  type,  Christ,  in  his  wisdom,  imme- 
diately after  he  had  eaten  the  last  Paschal  supper, 
established  a  supper  in  connection  with  the  anti-type — 
"  our  Passover."  And  the  elements  of  that  supper 
were  bread  and  wine.  Christ  commanded  these  to  be 
taken  ;  and  these  are  the  oi»ly  elements  he  has  cora- 
mantled  his  disciples  to  partake  of.  Hence,  the  bread 
and  wine,  taken  in  remembrance  of  Christ,  are  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

15 


DEBATE 


FEET-^Vs^  ^  SHE  IIN"  G- 


PROPOSITION  III. 

THE  WASHING  OF  FEET  IS  AN  ORDINANCE  ESTABLISHED  BY  JESUS 
CHRIST,  AND  BY  HIM  COMMANDED  TO  BE  OBSERVED  BY  ALL  HIS 
DISCIPLES  IN  THE  PUBLIC  ASSEMBLY  OF  HIS  CHURCH  UNTIL  HIS 
SECOND  COMING. 


[MR.  QUINTER'S  FIRST  ADDRESS.] 

Eriendly  Moderators — I  am  happy  to  meet  with 
you  this  morning,  to  resume  the  discussion  in  which 
■we  are  engaged.  In  the  proposition  read  for  discus- 
sion this  morning,  and  upon  which  I  take  the  affirma- 
tive, there  is  a  little  repetition.  In  discussing  it,  I 
propose  the  three  following  divisions,  which  I  think 
will  cover  all  the  points  contained  in  it: 

I.  Feet-washing  is  an  ordinance  established  by 
Jesus  Christ. 

II.  It  was  designed  to  be  continued  until  the  sec- 
ond coming  of  the  Saviour. 

III.  It  was  commanded  to  be  observed  in  the  pub- 
lic assembly  of  the  saints — as  publicly  as  other 
ordinances. 

In  defining  the  term  "  ordinance,"  I  shall  accept 
the  second  definition  given  by  Webster  of  that  word ; 
viz:  "An  observance  commanded." 

In  support  of  my  position  upon  the  affirmative  of 
this  proposition,  I  present  the  following  arguments  : 

1.  Feet-washing,  as  practiceil  and  explained  by 
226 


MR.    QUINTER's   first   ADDRESS.  227 

Cbri«;t,  hns  all  the  authority  necessary  to  constitute  it 
an  ordinance. 

The  authority  is  none  less  than  that  of  Jesus  Christ 
himself.  And  he  declares,  in  reference  to  the  author- 
ity under  which  he  acted :  "  I  have  not  spoken  of 
myself;  but  the  Father  which  sent  me,  he  gave  uie  a 
comuiandment,  what  I  should  say,  and  what  I  should 
speak."  (John,  xii :  49.)  The  feet-washing,  then, 
instituted  by  Christ,  and  for  which  we  contend,  has 
been  instituted  by  the  highest  authority  known  to 
man — the  highest  in  the  universe — that  of  the  "  King 
of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords."  It  is  not  wanting, 
then,  in  authority,  and  can  not  be  rejected  on  that 
ground. 

2.  The  command  was  given  in  lanoruno-e  bearincr 
the  form  of  an  ordinance  or  law — language  plainly 
implying  obligation  and  duty. 

''  Ye  call  me  Master  and  Lord ;  and  ye  say  well,  for 
so  I  am.  If  I,  then,  your  Lord  and  Master,  have 
w^ashed  your  feet,  ye  also  ought  to  wash  one  another's 
feet.  For  I  have  given  you  an  example,  that  ye  should 
do  as  I  have  done  to  you.^^     (John,  xiii :  13-15.) 

Oui^ht — "  To  be  held  or  bound  in  duty  or  moral 
obligation  :"  Webster. 

'•  Thou  oughtest,  therefore,  to  have  put  my  money 
to  the  exchangers,"  etc.:  Matthew,  xxv  :  27. 

''  He  shall  tell  thee  what  thou  oughtest  to  do  :"  Acts, 
x:  5. 

"  Ought,  the  past  tense  of  ''owe,"  is  now  used  to 
signify  present  duty  :"    Bullion. 

Should — "  In  the  second  or  third  person  it  denotes 
obligation  or  duty  :"  Webster. 

''Without  emphasis, '  should,'  in  the  second  person, 
is  nearly  equivalent  to  '  ought;'  you  ought  to  go,  it  is 
your  duty,  you  are  bound  to  go  :"  Webster. 

3.  My  third  argument  to  prove  that  the  feet  washing 
practiced  and  commanded  by  Christ  was  a  religious 


228  DEBATE   ON   FEET-WASHINa. 

rite,  or  ordinance,  and  not  an  ordinary  washing,  is 
the  implied  spirituality  of  that  washing. 

Before  proceeding  upon  this  argument,  I  wish  to 
make  a  single  introductory  remark  :  My  worthy  friend 
yesterday  took  a  little  exception  to  a  general  propo- 
sition which  I  had  somewhere  laid  down  in  the  course 
of  my  remarks,  that  Christianity  was  designed  to 
meet  all  the  wants  of  men.  Perhaps  that  proposition 
was  a  little  too  general ;  but  I  am  glad  to  know,  and 
it  is  to  be  remembered  to  the  honor  of  our  holy 
Christianity,  that  there  is  much  in  its  teachings,  and 
in  the  precepts  connected  with  it,  calculated  to  pro- 
mote our  physical  as  well  as  our  spiritual  welfare; 
precepts  inculcating  temperance,  industry,  bodily  pu- 
rity, etc.,  having  a  tendency  to  benefit  our  bodily  as 
well  as  our  moral  condition.  But  we  admit  that 
Christianity  \\n?,  primary  regard  to  our  moral  natures 
and  spiritual  wants. 

That  a  spiritual  significance  was  intended  to  be 
conveyed  in  the  ordinance  of  feet-washing  may  be 
inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  disciples  did  not  at 
first  understand  it.  When  Jesus  approached  Peter, 
to  wash  his  feet,  he  said,  "  Lord,  dost  thou  wash  my 
feet?"  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  ''What  I 
do,  thou  knowest  not  noAV  ;  but  thou  shalt  know  here- 
after." (John,  xiii  :  6,  7.)  There  was  evidently  a 
deeper  meaning  in  the  action  of  Christ  when  he  washed 
Peter's  feet  than  there  was  in  ordinary  acts  of  washing 
feet.  Surely,  if  the  washing  had  been  merely  to  make 
his  feet  clean,  Peter  could  not  have  failed  to  under- 
stand it;  for  he  certainly  had  often  washed  his  own 
feet,  and  he  knew  why  he  did  it;  it  was  to  make  them 
clean.  A  little  child  six  years  old  would  know  why 
its  mother  washed  its  feet,  or  required  it  to  be  done. 
But  Peter  did  not  know  the  full  import  of  the  action 
of  Jesus ;  and  the  reason  evidently  was,  because  it 
"Was  designed  for  something  more  than  an  ordinary 


MR.    QUINTEr's    first    ADDRESS.  229 

washing.  Nntiiral  tilings  they  readily  understood, 
but  spiritual  things  they  were  slow  to  learn.  This  we 
see  manifested  on  various  other  occasions.  lie  ad- 
monished them  to  '*  beware  of  the  leaven  of  the  Phar- 
isees and  Sadducees."  They  had  forgotten  to  supply 
themselves  with  bread ;  and  they  said,  "  It  is  because 
we  have  taken  no  bread."  The  admonition  had  a 
spiritual  import ;  but  they  did  not  perceive  it,  and  it 
was  necessary  for  Jesus  to  explain  it  to  them  before 
they  could  perceive  it.  See  Matthew,  sixteenth 
chapter.  So  it  was  with  the  action  of  Jesus  when  he 
washed  the  feet  of  his  disciples.  They  did  not  under- 
stand its  design,  its  spiritual  import,  until  Jesus 
explained  it  to  them.  And  -when  he  explained  it, 
what  was  the  explanation?  Did  he  say,  "I  have 
washed  your  feet  to  make  them  clean,  for  your  jour- 
ney was  such  that  in  traveling  they  had  become  de- 
filed?" Such  was  not  his  explanation.  But  it  was 
this:  "I  have  given  you  an  example,  that  ye  should 
do  as  I  have  done  to  yoii.^'     (Verse  15.) 

Its  spiritual  character  is  plainly  implied  in  the 
reference  to  Judas.  Jesus  said,  "  Ye  are  clean,  but 
not  all.  For  he  knew  who  should  betray  him  ;  there- 
fore said  he,  ye  are  not  all  clean."  (Verses  10,  11.) 
Now,  if  it  were  an  ordinary  washing,  Judas  would 
have  been  as  clean  as  any  of  them  ;  for  there  can  be  no 
doubt  but  that  Jesus  washed  the  feet  of  Judas  as  well 
as  those  of  the  rest  of  his  disciples.  But  as  Jesus 
spoke  of  Judas  as  being  unclean,  he  must  have  re- 
ferred to  spiritual  uncleanliness  ;  and  hence  it  is  plain 
that  Jesus  had  a  spiritual  washing  or  cleansing  in 
view  when  he  washed  the  feet  of  his  disciples. 

Its  spiritual  character  is  further  seen  from  the  con- 
siiieration  that  the  Saviour  seems  to  have  connected 
the  washing  of  feet  with  baptism.  When  Peter  feared 
that  he  might  have  no  part  in  his  Lord,  he  was  willing 
to  have  not  only  his  feet  washed,  but  said,  "  Lord,  noD 


230         DEBATE  ON  FEET- WASHING. 

my  feet  only,  but  also  my  hands  and  ray  head."  (Verse 
9.)  To  this  language  of  Peter,  Jesus  replied,  "He 
that  is  washed  needeth  not,  save  to  wash  his  feet,  but 
is  clean  every  whit."  When  the  Saviour  says,  "  He 
that  is  washed,"  or  "  bathed,"  as  it  is  generally  ren- 
dered, "need  not,  save  to  wash  his  feet,"  he  refers  to 
the  bath  of  regeneration ;  and  with  this,  baptism  was 
connected.  His  language  seems  to  imply  this:  With 
the  regeneration  of  the  believer  there  is  a  bathing  of 
the  entire  person  ;  but  afterward,  though  there  may 
be  failings,  another  regeneration  is  not  necessary,  but 
only  a  repentance  for  the  wrong  done ;  and  so  another 
entire  bathing  is  not  necessary,  but  only  a  partial 
bathing — the  washing  of  the  feet. 

I  maintain,  further,  that  it  was  a  spiritual  ordinance, 
and  therefore  an  ordinance  of  Christ,  from  Paul's  lan- 
guage to  the  Hebrews,  chapter  ninth,  verse  tenth. 
The  apostle  is  contrasting  the  gospel  dispensation 
with  the  Mosaic,  as  that  pertained  to  the  conscience, 
and  this  to  the  flesh.  In  speaking  of  the  ceremonies 
of  the  law,  he  says,  "  Which  stood  only  in  meats  and 
drinks,  and  divers  washings,  and  carnal  ordinances, 
imposed  on  them  till  the  time  of  reformation."  From 
this  we  see  that  the  carnal  ordinances  were  to  continue 
only  till  the  time  of  reformation — that  is,  till  the  time 
of  Christ,  for  this  was  the  time  of  reformation  referred 
to.  Now,  if  Christ  washed  his  disciples'  feet  as  a 
mere  bodily  or  carnal  washing,  and  meant,  in  what  he 
said,  to  tell  them  that  he  designed  they  should  wash 
one  another's  feet  for  the  same  purpose,  then  did  he 
perpetuate  carnal  ordinances.  But  carnal  ordinances, 
according  to  Paul's  language,  which  1  have  quoted, 
were  only  to  continue  until  the  reformation,  or  the 
time  of  Christ ;  therefore,  the  washing  of  feet  as 
practiced  and  commanded  by  Christ,  was  not  a  carnal, 
but  a  spiritual  washing,  or  a  spiritual  ordinance. 

Finally,  I  argue  the  spirituality  of  the  ceremony 


MR.    QUINTKR's    first    ADDRESS.  231 

thus  commanded  to  be  observed,  from  the  effect  that 
was  to  follow  its  observance. 

In  the  explanation  which  Jesus  gave  to  his  disciples 
of  his  action  in  -washing  their  feet,  he  said,  ''  If  ye 
know  these  things,  happy  are  ye  if  ye  do  tlieni." 
(Verse  17.)  None  will  for  a  moment  doubt  that  Jesus 
embraced  feet-washing  in  the  phrase,  "  these  things." 
Did  he  not  mean  the  precepts  and  ordinances  which 
he  had  given  his  disciples?  He  evidently  did.  But 
I  now  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  effect  of  feet- 
washing.  "Happy  are  ye  if  ye  do  them."  The  word 
translated  "  Imppy,"  is  makarias.  This  word  in  other 
places  is  translated  "blessed;"  and  Mr.  Anderson  has 
so  translated  it  in  this  place.  His  translation  of  the 
seventeenth  verse  reads  :  "  If  you  know  these  things, 
blessed  are  you  if  you  do  them."  I  have  some  prefer- 
ence for  the  terra  "blessed"  over  that  of  "happ}^;" 
and  my  preference  is  based  on  something  like  this  : 
The  term  "  happy  "  is  explicit,  and  well  understood, 
it  is  true  ;  but  it  is  more  commonly  associated  with  a 
lower  class  of  enjoyments — pleasures  of  a  worldly  or 
carnal  nature;  and  the  happy  feeling  the  worldling 
obtains  in  the  pursuit  of  his  low  enjoyments  is  not 
always  a  blessing  to  him.  But  the  Christian's  happi- 
ness is  a  real  blessing ;  consequently  I  prefer  the 
term  "  blessed  "  in  speaking  of  this  higher  kind  of 
happiness,  or  enjoyments  of  a  spiritual  nature.  As 
one  of  our  poets  beautifully  expresses  himself  in  refer- 
ence to  the  pleasures  experienced  by  the  humble  be- 
liever :  "  These  are  the  joys  that  satisfy,  and  mnctify 
the  mind."  "Blessed"  is  the  w^ord  repeatedly  used 
in  our  Lord's  Sermon  on  the  Mount — that  fruitful 
vine  of  divine  truth,  where  blessing  after  blessing  fol- 
lowed in  rapid  succession,  till  there  is  a  cluster  we 
love  to  look  at,  and  love  still  more  to  take  and  eat. 

I  turn  to  Revelations,  xxii  :  14,  and  read  :  "  Blessed 
are  they  that  do  his  commandments,  that  they  may 


232  DEBATE    ON   FEET-WASHING. 

have  right  to  the  tree  of  life,  and  may  enter  in  through 
the  gates  into  the  city."  How  simihir  is  the  language 
in  the  two  passages  !  "  Blessed  are  ye  if  ye  do  tliera." 
That  is,  if  ye  wash  feet,  and  do  the  other  things  he 
had  been  speaking  to  them  about.  "  Blessed  are  they 
that  do  his  commandments."  May  we  not  justly 
infer  that  feet-washing  is  one  of  the  commandments 
referred  to  in  Revelations,  xxii :  14?  "Blessed  are 
ye  if  ye  do  them  :'*  does  not  this  mean  that  they  shall 
be  blessed  with  grace,  or  spiritual  blessings  ?  Surely 
it  does.  Then  is  not  feet-washing  a  spiritual  ordi- 
nance, a  means  of  grace  ?  If  grace,  or  spiritual 
blessings  were  to  follow  the  observance  of  it,  then  it 
is  important,  and  by  rejecting  it,  or  neglecting  it,  we 
shall  surely  lose  the  promised  blessings. 

From  the  considerations  I  have  presented,  it  appears 
evident  that  the  feet-washing  practiced  and  com- 
manded by  Christ  was  not  a  carnal,  but  a  spiritual 
ordinance;  that  is,  it  was  not  to  put  away  the  filth 
of  the  flesh,  but  to  impress  the  moral  nature  of  the 
disciples,  and  to  promote  their  spiritual  improvement 
and  enjoyment.  And  if  this  was  its  design,  must 
not  its  claims  to  the  character  of  a  Christian  rite  be 
acknowledged  ? 

Having  shown  the  spirituality  of  feet-w^ashing,  and 
having  shown  from  its  spiritual  character  that  it  is 
justly  entitled  to  a  place  among  Christian  rites,  1 
shall  proceed  to  introduce  my  fourth  argument. 

4.  My  fourth  argument  to  prove  that  feet-washing 
is  an  ordinance,  I  shall  call  an  argument  from  analogy, 
or  resemblance  ;  because  there  is  resemblance  between 
feet-washing  and  other  acknowledged  rites  in  the 
Christian  system. 

"Were  I  discussing  this  question  with  a  Friend,  or 
Quaker,  the  relevancy  or  suitableness  of  this  argu- 
ment might  not  appear  very  plain,  since  they  reject 
all  ritec)  or  ordinances  ^Yhich  have  an  external  relation 


MR.    QUINTEll'S    FIRST    ADDRESS.  233 

to  the  soul,  nnd  cnll  them  "external  ordinances."  We 
do  not  admit  the  propriety  or  justice  of  calling  any 
of  the  Christian  rites  external  ordinances,  since  they 
are  designed  to  have  an  internal  effect,  or  an  effect 
upon  our  moral  nature. 

I  call  ray  present  argument  an  argument  from  anal- 
ogy, meaning  by  this  that  there  are  acknowledged  or- 
dinances in  the  church  of  Christ,  and  authorized  by 
God,  which  have  some  resemblance  to  feet-washing. 
My  opponent,  and  the  denomination  which  he  repre- 
sents, and  the  whole  Christian  world,  with  but  little 
exception,  acknowledge  the  binding  authority  of  the 
communion  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  in  the 
elements  of  bread  and  wine,  and  of  Christian  baptism, 
perfoi-med  in  the  element  of  water. 

Believing  in  the  utility  of  religious  rites,  and  in 
their  existence  in  the  church  of  Christ — when  we  look 
at  the  circumstances  under  which  Jesus  practiced  feet- 
washing,  just  at  the  close  of  his  life,  and  in  his  last 
interview  with  his  disciples  before  he  suffered;  when 
we  look  at  its  spiritual  character  ;  at  its  accompanying 
blessings  ;  and  finally  at  the  language  of  Jesus  spoken 
to  his  disciples  when  he  said,  ''  I  have  given  you  an 
example,  that  ye  should  do  as  I  have  done  to  you;" 
we   can  not    resist  the  conviction  that  feet-washinor 

o 

should  be  considered  an  ordinance,  rite,  or  command- 
ment given  by  Christ,  the  Head  of  the  Church,  to  be 
observed  by  his  disciples  for  their  spiritual  improve- 
ment and  enjoyment. 

In  connection  with  ray  present  argument  from 
analogy,  I  may  state  the  fact  that  feet- washing  was 
once  an  ordinance  of  God — a  religious  rite.  We  have 
it  given  in  the  following  words :  "  Thou  shalt  also 
make  a  laver  of  brass,  and  his  foot  also  of  brass,  to 
wash  withal;  and  thou  shalt  put  it  between  the  taber- 
nacle of  the  congregation  and  the  altar,  and  thou  shalt 
pjit  water  therein.     For  Aaron   and  his   sons  bhall 


234  DEBATE   ON   FEET-WASHING. 

wasli  their  hands  and  their  feet  thereat.  When  they 
go  into  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  they  shall 
wash  with  water,  that  they  die  not ;  or  when  they 
come  near  to  the  altar  to  minister,  to  burn  offerings 
made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord.  So  shall  they  wash  their 
hands  and  their  feet,  that  they  die  not;  and  it  shall 
be  a  statute  forever  to  them,  even  to  him  and  his  seed 
throughout  their  generations."     Exodus,  xxx  :  18-21. 

We  do  not  argue  that  feet-washing  is  an  ordinance 
in  the  Christian  church  because  it  was  an  ordinance 
in  the  Jewish  congregation.  But  if  Infinite  Wisdom 
once  ordained  it,  under  some  form,  as  an  instructive, 
expressive,  and  symbolic  rite,  this  fact  should  at  least 
prevent  us  from  having  any  prejudice  against  it,  when 
we  are  examining  the  subject  to  learn  whether  that  same 
Infinite  Wisdom  may  not  have  ordained  it  as  an  ordi- 
nance in  another  form  in  the  Christian  church.  Water 
was  used  as  an  element  in  religious  rites  in  the  Jewish 
dispensation,  and  so  it  is  in  the  Christian  dispensation. 
Bread  was  used  in  the  religious  rites  of  the  Old  dis- 
pensation, and  it  is  also  used  in  a  rite  of  the  New  dis- 
pensation. If,  then,  the  element  of  water,  and  a  form 
of  feet- washing,  as  an  ordinance,  existed  by  divine 
authority  under  a  former  dispensation,  and  as  water 
has  been  chosen  by  the  Christian  Lawgiver  as  a  symbol 
of  purification,  and  as  a  constituent  in  at  least  one 
rite  under  the  present  dispensation,  there  surely  is 
nothing  unseemly,  absurd,  or  unreasonable  in  the  posi- 
tion that  a  form  of  feet-washing  exists  also  as  an 
oniinance  in  the  church  of  Christ.  Whether  it  does 
or  does  not,  is  to  be  decided  by  a  candid  examination 
of  the  Christian  Scriptures.  That  examination  we 
are  now  making.  And  to  lead  our  minds  to  a  proper 
conclusion  relative  to  the  subject  under  consideration, 
I  am  using  such  arguments  as  I  deem  best  calculated 
to  draw  out  the  truth. 

I  have  given  the  ordinance  of  feet- washing  as  it 


MR.    QUINTER's   first    ADDRESS.  235 

was  enacted  by  God  liimscif  for  a  former  dispensation. 
I  will  now  give  the  practical  view  of  that  ordinance, 
as  taken  by  two  popular  commentators: 

Mr.  Scott,  on  Exodus,  xxx  :  20,  21,  says:  "The 
priests,  though  washed  at  their  consecration,  were 
commanded,  on  pain  of  death,  to  wash  their  hands 
and  feet  every  time- they  officiated,  or,  at  least,  once  a 
day  ;  which  intimated  their  continued  guilt,  which  they 
contracted  in  their  daily  emplojnnents  and  contact 
with  the  world." 

Dr.  Clarke,  on  this  passage,  says:  "What  an  im- 
portant lesson  does  this  teach  the  ministers  of  the 
Gospel  of  Christ !  Each  time  they  minister  in  public, 
whether  in  dispensing  the  woid  or  the  sacraments, 
they  should  take  heed  that  they  have  a  fresh  applica- 
tion of  the  grace  and  spirit  of  Christ,  to  do  away  with 
past  transgressions  or  unfaithfulness,  and  to  enable 
them  to  minister  with  the  greater  effect,  as  being  in 
the  divine  favor,  and  consequently  entitled  to  expect 
all  tlie  necessary  assistance  of  the  divine  unction,  to 
make  their  ministrations  spirit  and  life  to  the  peo{)le." 

Kow  if.  as  Dr.  Scott  thinks,  the  ceremony  that  the 
priests  performed  when  they  washed  their  hands  and 
feet,  "  intimated  their  continual  guilt,  which  they  con- 
tracted in  their  daily  employments  and  converse  with 
the  world,"  would  it  not  be  well  for  us  to  have  an 
ordinance  to  remind  us  of  our  guilt?  And  if,  as  Dr. 
Clarke  declares,  "an  important  lesson  "  is  taught  from 
the  priests  washing  their  hands  and  their  feet,  could 
we  not  learn  still  more  from  practicing  something  of 
the  kind  ourselves?  It  would  seem  likely  we  could, 
and  from  the  practical  utility  of  feet-washing,  as  well 
as  from  various  other  considerations,  we  claim  for  it 
the  character  of  a  Christian  rite.     \Time  expired. 


236  DEBATE  ON  FBET-WASHING. 


[MR.  McCONNELL'S  FIRST  ADDRESS.] 

Mr.  Moderators — Again  we  are  present,  under 
circumstances  of  peace  and  safety,  for  the  purpose  of 
engaging  in  the  discussion  of  another  proposition — 
the  proposition  read  by  the  President  moderator  this 
morning,  the  affirmative  of  which  my  friend  has  in 
part  presented  in  the  foregoing  speech.  Without  any 
preliminary  remarks,  I  shall  proceed  at  once  to  con- 
sider the  first  thing  necessary  in  order  to  a  clear  un- 
derstanding of  the  points  at  issue.  I  have  no  objec- 
tion to  my  friend's  analysis  of  the  proposition  and 
difinition  of  the  terms  contained  in  it.  He  considers 
the  subject  under  three  divisions  :  1st,  Feet-washing 
is  an  ordinance  commanded  by  Christ ;  2d,  It  was  de- 
signed to  be  perpetual  ;  3d,  It  is  to  be  performed  in 
the  public  assembly  of  the  church.  I  take  no  excep- 
tions to  this  analysis.  Nor  have  I  any  fault  to  find 
with  his  definition  of  the  word  "  ordinance  " — "an 
observance  commanded."  This  I  accept  as  a  correct 
definition. 

But  I  would  call  your  attention  to  this  point :  that 
ordinances,  or  observances  commianded,  are  of  at  least 
two  characters.  There  are  ordinances  that  pertain 
particularly  and  exclusively  to  religious  worshif),  and 
there  are  ordinances  or  observances  of  a  moral  charac- 
ter. The  distinction  is  sometimes  made  between  posi- 
live  ordinances,  and  mora^  observances:  the  positive^ 
resting  alone  on  the  authority  of  the  lawgiver;  the 
moral,  growing  out  of  the  nature  of  things.  The  one 
is  right  because  commanded — the  other  is  commanded 
because  right.  I  wish  you  to  keep  this  thought  in 
your  mind. 

A  word  in  regard  to  the  perpetuity  of  the  ordi- 
nance, or  the  act,  which  my  friend  would  have  us  re- 
gard as  an  ordinance.     There  will  be  no  controversy 


MR.    M  CONNELL  S   FIRST    ADDRESS.  'Z6 

at  all  upon  the  qiiostion  of  its  perpotuit^^  providing 
tlie  affirmative  of  the  main  visue  is  established  by  my 
friend.  So  he  need  spend  no  time  upon  the  (juestion 
of  the  perpetuity  of  the  observance  under  consider- 
ation-. 

Tlie  main  issue,  then,  if  I  understand  it,  has  refer- 
ence to  the  thne  and  the  place  for  the  observance  of 
this  ordinance,  this  law,  this  precept,  or  whatever  we 
may  most  properly  call  it. 

First,  let  me  call  to  your  remembrance  this  fact: 
that  the  washing  of  feet — of  the  feet  of  others — as  a 
custom,  existed  long  before  the  time  of  Christ;  we 
read  of  it,  as  a  common  or  customary  act,  nearly  or 
quite  two  thousand  years  before  the  birth  of  Jesus 
Christ;  and  it  continued  at  least  till  the  time  of  our 
Saviour's  coming.  In  proof  of  this  point — though  my 
friend  will  not  dispute  it — I  propose  to  read  a  few 
passages  from  the  Holy  Scriptures.  And  first,  from 
Genesis,  xviii :  4 :  '*  Let  a  little  water,  I  pray  you,  be 
fetched,  and  wash  your  feet,  and  rest  yourselves  under 
the  tree."  Gen.,  xix  :  2  :  "Behold  now%  my  lords, 
turn  in,  I  pray  you,  into  your  servant's  house,  and 
tarry  all  night,  and  wash  your  feet,  and  ye  shall  rise 
up  early,  and  go  on  your  ways."  Gen.,  xxiv :  32 : 
"And  the  man  came  into  the  house;  and  he  ungirded 
his  camels,  and  gave  straw  and  provender  for  the 
camels,  and  water  to  wash  his  feet,  and  the  men's  feet 
that  were  with  him."  Gen.,  xliii :  24:  *'  And  the  man 
brought  the  men  into  Joseph's  house,  and  gave  them 
water,  and  they  washed  their  feet."  Judges,  xix  :  21 : 
"  So  he  brought  him  into  his  house,  and  gave  proven- 
der unto  the  asses  ;  and  they  washed  their  feet,  and 
did  eat  and  drink."  II  Sara.,  xi :  8  :  "And  David 
said  to  Uriah,  go  down  to  thy  house,  and  wash  thy 
feet ;  and  Uriah  departed  out  of  the  King's  house, 
and  there  followed  him  a  n^ess  of  meat  from  the  King." 
Coming  from  the  Old  Testament  to  the  New,  in  Luke, 


238  DEBATE    ON    FEET-WASHING. 

chapter  vii,  commencing  at  the  thirty-sixth  verse,  we 
read  that  '*  One  of  the  pharisees  desired  him  (Jesus)  that 
he  would  eat  with  him.  And  he  went  into  the  pharisee's 
house,  and  sat  down  to  meat.  And  behold,  a  woman  in 
the  city  which  was  a  sinner,  when  she  knew  that  Jesus 
sat  at  meat  in  the  pharisee's  house,  brought  an  ala- 
baster box  of  ointment,  and  stood  at  his  feet  behind  him 
weeping,  and  began  to  wash  his  feet  with  tears,  and 
did  wipe  them  with  the  hairs  of  her  head,  and  kissed  his 
feet,  and  anointed  them  with  the  ointment."  Pass- 
ing to  verse  forty-four,  we  read  that  the  Saviour 
"  said  unto  Simon,  seest  thou  this  woman  ?  I  entered 
into  thy  house,  thou  gavest  me  no  water  for  my  feet ; 
but  she  hath  washed  my  feet  with  tears,  and  wiped 
them  with  the  hairs  of  lier  head." 

jNow,  from  these  quotations  we  learn  three  things. 
First,  that  the  washing  of  feet  was  a  custom  that  pre- 
vailed from  the  days  of  Abraham  down  to  the  time  of 
the  public  ministry  of  our  Saviour  upon  earth  ;  he  found 
the  custom,  or  practice,  prevalent  among  his  own  (the 
Jewish)  people.  Secondly,  you  will  observe  that  it 
was  2i  family  custom  ;  in  every  case  that  I  have  read, 
the  act  of  washing  the  feet  was  performed  in  the 
house,  except  in  one  instance,  and  then  it  was  in  the 
shade  of  a  tree,  close  to  the  tent  door;  and  then  the 
act  preceded  the  eating  of  a  meal  in  the  same  place — 
in  the  shade  of  the  tree.  Thirdly,  you  will  observe 
that  this  washing  of  feet  was  a  custom  that  prevailed 
in  connection  with  the  eating  of  the  evening  meal,  or 
supper. 

Now,  turn  to  I  Samuel,  xxv :  40,  41  :  "And  when 
the  servants  of  David  were  come  to  Abigail  to  Car- 
mel,  they  spake  unto  her,  saying,  David  sent  us  unto  thee 
to  take  thee  to  him  to  wife.  And  she  arose,  and  bowed 
herself  on  her  face  to  the  earth,  and  said,  ''Behold,  let 
thine  handmaid  be  a  servant  to  wash  the  feet  of 
the  servants  of  my  Lord."     This  proves   that  feet- 


MR.    m'cONNELL's   first    ADDRESS.  239 

washing,  as  a  custom,  not  only  existed,  but  that  it 
was  the  custom  for  servants  to  wash  tlie  feet  of  guests 
who  came — "  washing  the  feet  of  their  friends,"  and 
that  this  very  custom  liad  obtained  from  the  earliest 
ages  until  Jesus  Christ  appeared  on  earth. 

Now,  I  want  these  several  points  distinctly  noted  : 
that  the  custom  of  washing  feet  is  as  old  as  Abraham, 
and  continued  in  practice  until  the  time  of  Christ's 
public  ministry  ;  that  it  was  practiced  in  the  house,  in 
the  evening,  in  connection  with  or  preceding  a  meal, 
and  in  many  cases  by  servants  waiting  upon  distin- 
guished guests  of  their  masters. 

And  now  I  wish  to  call  vour  attention  to  the  case,  the 
main  case — I  was  about  to  say,  the  only  case — upon 
which  any  reliance  at  all  can  be  placed  by  our  friends  to 
sustain  their  position  upon  this  question.  I  refer  to 
the  case  already  introduced  by  my  friend,  recorded  in 
the  thirteenth  chapter  of  John's  testimony.  And  I 
will  show  you  that  all  the  points  in  the  case  were  in 
accordance  with  the  then  prevailing  custom. 

Kead,  then,  if  you  please,  the  first  verse:  "  Now  be- 
fore the  feast  of  the  Passover,  when  Jesus  knew  that  his 
hour  was  come  that  he  should  depart  out  of  this  world 
unto  the  Father,  having  loved  his  own  which  were  in 
the  world,  he  loved  them  unto  the  end.  And  supper 
being  endud,  the  devil  having  now  put  it  into  the  heart 
of  Judas  Iscariot,  Siuiou's  son,  to  betray  him,  Jesus, 
knowing  that  the  Father  had  given  all  things  into  his 
hands,  and  tbat  he  was  come  from  God,  and  went  to  God, 
he  riseth  from  supper,  and  laid  aside  his  garments,  and 
took  a  towel  and  girded  himself.  After  that  he  poureth 
water  into  a  basin,  and  began  to  wash  the  disciples  feet, 
and  to  wipe  them  with  the  tOAvel  wherewith  he  was 
girded."  Now,  turn  to  Matthew,  twenty-sixth  chapter, 
sixth  to  twelfth  verses,  and  you  will  find  that  this 
occurred  at  Simon's  house,  in  the  town  of  Bethany  ; 
and  that  then  and  there  Simon  made  a  supper  for 


240  DEBATE   ON   FEET-WASHING. 

Jesus  and  his  disciples,  in  his  own  private  house  ;  and 
at  night,  too,  as  we  shall  see.  The  Saviour  found  the 
custom  of  washing  feet,  for  purposes  of  cleanliness,  in 
the  world  when  he  came;  he  and  his  disciples  met  at 
Simon's  house;  Simon  did  not  perform,  and  none  of  his 
servants  came  to  perform,  this  act  of  hospitality.  Now, 
to  exhibit  to  his  disciples,  and  to  all  generations  there- 
after, an  example  contrary  to  anything  they  had  ever 
seen,  j:he  Lord  of  those  disciples,  instead  of  the  house- 
hold servants,  performed  the  act  of  service,  the  duty 
which  had  formerly  been  performed  by  the  servants  of 
the  household.  He  thus  taught  by  example  what  he  had 
before  taught  in  words,  that  he  that  was  greatest 
should  be  the  servant  of  all.  The  apostle  was  no 
doubt  contemplating  this,  if  not  this  deed,  at  least 
this  disposition,  when  he  said  (Phil.,  ii:  5),  ''  Let  this 
mind  be  in  you  which  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus."  Feet- 
washing  our  Saviour  found  in  the  world  when  he  came, 
the  custom  prevailing  just  as  he  performed  it,  except 
the  reversal  of  the  position  :  instead  of  his  servants 
washing  his  feet,  he,  the  Master,  washed  their  feet. 
And  this,  not  to  elevate  the  act  into  a  public  ordi- 
nance, but.  by  it,  to  teach  them  a  lesson  of  humility. 
My  brother  said,  and  said  truly — and  he  has  said  a 
great  deal  of  truth  during  this  discussion,  from  the 
beginning  till  the  present  time — that  feet-washing  is 
one  of  Christ's  commands ;  that  Christ  said  (John, 
xiii :  14, 15),  ''  If  I,  then,  your  Lord  and  Master,  have 
washed  your  feet,  ye  also  ought  to  wash  one  another's 
feet;  for  I  have  given  you  an  example,  that  ye  should 
do  as  I  have  done  to  you."  Well,  I  am  willing  to 
follow  that  example ;  to  wash  feet  as  he  did.  But 
where  did  he  do  it?  In  a  private  family.  }Vhen  did 
he  do  it?  Before  retiring  to  rest.  Why  did  he  do 
it?  For  purposes  of  cleanliness  and  comfort,  because 
it  was  needed  by  them,  travel-soiled  from  the  journey 
of  the  day.     Now,  as  Christ  did  and  commauiled,  1  am 


Mil.  M'cONXELL's    I'lliST    ADDRESS.  241 

ready  to  do;  in  my  own  house,  n,t  night  before  retir- 
ing to  rest,  if  any  of  my  brethren  need  to  have  their 
feet  washed  for  purposes  of  cleanliness  and  comfort, 
I  hope  and  believe  I  am  not  too  proud  to  do  it.  But 
I  am  not  ready  to  elevate  it  into  a  religious  ordinance, 
and  to  perform  it  in  the  public  ass^embly  of  the  church, 
till  I  find  that  Christ  did  it,  or  commanded  it  to  be 
done. 

My  friend  told  you  that  feet-washing  was  07ice  an 
ordinance  of  God  ;  was  a  religious  ordinance  under 
the  Mosaic  dispensation.  But  there  is  one  difficulty 
about  this:  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation  the  priests 
were  commanded  to  wash,  not  the  feet  alone,  but  the 
hands  also.  But  my  Tonker  brethren  may  respond, 
that  when  the  feet  are  washed,  the  hands  are  washed, 
as  a  matter  of  course.  But,  in  the  first  place,  it  is 
not  he  whose  feet  are  washed,  but  he  that  does  the 
washing,  whose  hands  are  washed;  he  washes  anoth- 
er's feet,  but  his  oivn  hands :  and,  secondly,  God  gave 
to  Aaron  and  his  sons  a  special  command  for  washing 
their  hands  ;  the  hands  and  feet  were  coupled  in  the 
command.  But  they  are  not  so  coupled  in  the  prac- 
tice which  my  friend  insists  upon.  I  do  not  claim 
that  this  amounts  to  much  as  an  argument;  but  since 
my  friend  has  introduced  the  subject,  I  want  to  say  a 
few  words  upon  this  tabernacle  service.  It  is  uni- 
versally admitted  that  the  tabernacle  service,  from  its 
outer  court  with  its  furniture  and  service,  to  its  inner 
court  with  its  golden  candlestick,  its  table  of  shew- 
bread,  its  altar  of  incense,  its  sanctum  sanctorum,  its 
cherubim  of  gold,  its  holy  shekinah,  in  fact,  all  that 
pertained  to  it,  was  typical  of  the  Christain  institution. 
If  this  be  true — wiiich  no  one  has  ever  ventured  to 
deny — then  that  washing  in  the  brazen  laver  was  typi- 
cal of  something,  and  must  somewhere  have  its  anti- 
type. My  friend  seems  to  base  the  claims  of  feet- 
washing  as  an  ordinance  under  the  Christian  economy, 
IC 


242         DEBATE  ON  FEET- WASHING. 

in  part  upon  the  assumption  that  it  is  the  anti-type  of 
the  washing  in  the  brazen  laver — or  else  his  refer- 
ence thereto  is  not  pertinent  at  all.  But  the  washing 
of  the  hands  and  feet  in  the  brazen  laver  was  per- 
formed before  entering  into  the  tabernacle;  there  was 
no  washing  of  any  kind  in  the  tabernacle  ;  there  was 
no  water  there.  Now,  if  feet- washing  be  the  an ti- type 
of  the  washing  of  the  feet  and  hands  in  the  brazen 
laver,  feet-washing  must  be  performed  outside  of  the 
church,  not  inside  of  it,  according  to  his  practice. 
My  Tonker  friends  will  please  notice  this  point;  that 
feet-washing,  to  be  at  all  consistent  with  that  which  ii 
claimed  to  be  its  type,  must  take  place  before  enter- 
ing the  church.  But  my  friend  will  not  claim  that 
the  washing  in  the  brazen  laver  was  the  type  of  feet- 
washing,  for  it  has  baptism  for  its  anti-type  ;  the  whole 
Christian  world  so  acknow^ledges,  and  my  friend  will 
not  contend  otherwise.  So  all  the  argument  in  behalf 
of  feet-washing  founded  upon  the  washing  in  the  bra- 
zen laver  falls  to  the  ground. 

My  friend  has  endeavored  to  argue  that,  because 
the  washing  of  feet  was  commanded  by  Christ,  it 
must  therefore  be  a  religious  ordinance,  to  be  ''  per- 
formed in  the  public  assembly  of  the  church."  But 
Christ  commanded  many  things  which  he  did  not  es- 
tablish as  public  ordinances.  He  commanded  his 
disciples  to  feed  the  hungry  ;  but  did  this  constitute 
it  an  act  of  religious  worship  ?  and  to  clothe  the 
naked  ;  but  was  this  to  be  done  in  the  public  assembly 
of  the  church?  They,  and  many  other  things  that 
might  be  mentioned,  are  acts  of  obedience  to  God,  but 
are  )iot  ordinances  of  religious  worship,  to  be  per- 
formed in  the  public  assembly  of  the  church. 

Some  other  things  said  by  my  friend  I  shall  not 
attempt  to  reply  to,  because  they  do  not  seem  to  me 
to  have  any  particular  force,  or  bearing  upon  the  ques- 
tion.    Ileferring   to   the   verse,  "  If  ye   know    these 


MR.    m'cONNELL'S    first   ADDRESS.  243 

tilings,  liappy  are  3'e  if  ye  do  them;"  my  friend  pre- 
fers the  word  ''hiessed,"  to  '"happy;"  I  have  no 
special  objection  to  the  criticism,  yet  1  prefer  the  word 
"  happy,"  as  in  the  common  translation,  for  one  reason, 
at  least  :  the  word  "  blessed"  has  a  nieauiiijr  in  it  be- 
vond  anvthinor  that  belon;2;s  to  man;  it  is  the  word 
that  is  used  to  express  our  conceptions,  and  thanks- 
<:;ivings,  and  praises,  and  adoration  toward  Almighty 
God  ;  as  David  says,  "  Bless  the  Lord,  0  my  soul" 
(Ps.,  ciii :  1,  and  many  other  places).     \_Time  expired. 


[MR.  QUIXTER'S  SECOND  ADDRESS.] 

Friendly  Moderators — I  am  happy  to  continue 
my  course  of  argument,  and  to  respond  to  the  re- 
marks of  my  friend,  so  far  as  any  response  may  be 
necessary.  He  has  given  us  an  account  of  feet-wash- 
ing among  the  ancients,  and  pointed  out  to  us  quite 
a  number  of  instances.  But,  he  tells  us,  it  was  a 
custom  of  the  world.  We  will  admit  that  it  was  so. 
I  showed,  on  the  other  hand,  that  it  was  a  command 
of  Jehovah  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  that  the 
Jewish  priests  should  wash  their  hands  and  feet. 
And  now,  we  find  feet-washing  as  a  custom  of  the 
world,  and  feet-washing  as  an  ordinance  of  the  Jew- 
ish religion;  we  have  it  in  the  family,  and  we  have  it 
in  the  house  of  Grod ;  or,  if  it  please  you  better,  con- 
nected with  riie  holy  service  of  God.  Before  the 
priests  could  enter  the  tabernacle  to  perform  the  func- 
tions of  their  sacred  ofiice,  before  approaching  that 
pure  and  holy  Being  whom  they  worshiped,  they 
were  commanded  to  wash  their  hands  and  feet.  I  do 
not  say  that  the  washing  in  the  brazen  laver  was 
typical  of  feet-washing  in  the  chui-ch  of  God;  but  I 
say  that  feet-washing  was  connected  with  the  wor- 
ship of  God  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation. 


244  DEBATE    ON   FEET-WASIIINa. 

Now,  we  have  feet-wasliing  presented  to  us  under 
two  aspects  :  as  a  worldly  institution  or  act,  and  as 
an  institution  or  ceremony  connected  with  the  ser- 
vice of  God.  It  remains  for  us  to  examine  this  act 
of  Christ,  in  washing  his  disciples'  feet,  in  connection 
with  the  attendant  circumstances,  consequences,  etc., 
and  see  with  which  it  best  agrees — with  the  institu- 
tion of  feet-washing  as  a  custom  of  the  world,  or 
with  the  -institution  of  feet-washing  as  an  observ- 
ance connected  with  the  service  of  the  Lord.  That 
feet-washing  existed  as  a  custom  of  the  world,  my 
friend  admits,  indeed,  positively  asserts;  but  that  is 
no  proof  that  it  is  not  now  an  ordinance  of  the 
church.  Does  not  my  friend  know  that  before  im- 
mersion was  made  an  ordinance  of  the  church  by  the 
divine  authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  it  existed  as  a  cus- 
tom of  the  world — even  ages  before?  Before  the 
h\w  was  delivered  to  Moses  from  Mt.  Sinai,  in 
Moses'  infancy,  Pharaoh's  daughter  went  down  to 
the  river  to  bathe.  Who  is  so  ignorant  of  Oriental 
history  as  not  to  know  that  bathing  or  immersion, 
is  a  common  custom  among  the  Eastern  nations  ? 
But  our  blessed  Saviour,  when  he  came,  took  this  act 
of  bathing  or  immersion  out  of  the  world,  stamped 
his  own  divine  authority  upon  it,  constituted  it  a  re- 
ligious ordinance,  and  handed  it  down  to  his  church 
and  people,  from  that  time  to  the  present.  Then 
what  force  is  there  in  the  argument  so  often  brought 
against  us,  that  feet-washing  can  not  be  a  religious 
ordinance,  because  it  had  before  been  a  worldly  cus- 
tom, and  had  existed  for  ages,  ever  since  the  time  of 
Abraham?  The  question  is  not  whether  it  was  a 
worldly  custom,  or  an  ancient  custom  ;  but  did  Jesus 
Christ  give  it  his  sanction?  I  may  illustrate  the 
point  in  this  way:  How  many  laws  have  we  in  this 
country,  that  were  laws  in  England,  while  these 
States  were  yet  colonies,  or  even  before  ?     But  when 


MR.  QUINTEH^S   SECOND    ADDRESS.  245 

the  governmont  of  the  United  States  was  organized, 
men  in  authority,  the  legishiture  of  the  nation,  took 
certain  hiws  which  liad  previously  existed,  and  gave 
them  the  sanction  of  legislative  authority ;  and  what- 
ever they  once  were,  however  ancient  may  be  their 
origin,  they  now  arc  the  laws  by  which  we  are  gov- 
erned. So  with  feet-washing:  whatever  Abraham,  or 
Lot,  or  any  one  else  did,  Jesus  Christ  washed  tlie 
feet  of  his  disciples,  and  commanded  them  to  do  the 
same  to  each  other.  We  maintain — and  this  is  the 
point  at  issue — that  Jesus  Christ  gave  this  observ- 
ance a  religious  character. 

My  friend  admits  the  propriety  of  feet-washing 
under  some  circumstances — and  I  am  glad  he  a(lmit3 
it  under  almost  any  circumstances  ;  but  I  would  like 
to  have  him  tell  us  whether  he  would  wash  feet 
because  he  acknowledges  it  to  be  a  command  of 
Jesus  Christ,  or  simply  in  order  to  cleanse  the  feet, 
as  in  common  washing  ?  Perhaps  he  was  paving  the 
■way  for  an  explanation  upon  this  point  when  he  gave 
the  preference  to  the  word  "happy"  instead  of 
"  blessed,"  in  the  verse  quoted,  i  deem  the  word 
*' blessed"  more  appropriate  than  "  happy,"  because 
the  happiness  we  feel  when  washing  one  another's 
feet  is  a  blessing  from  God.  By  obeying  the  com- 
mandments of  the  Lord  we  are  made  partakers  of 
spiritual  enjoyments.  I  do  not  make  my  brethren 
*'  happy,"  or  they  me,  when  we  wash  one  another's 
feet,  but  God  ''  blesses  "  us  when  Ave  try  to  obey  his 
commands.  And  right  here  is  the  point  which  I  en- 
deavored to  impress  upon  your  minds  in  my  former 
speech :  I  called  your  special  attention  to  the  spirit- 
uality of  the  act,  when  Jesus  washed  the  feet  of  his 
disciples.  Will  any  one  associate  an  idea  so  low  and  so 
carnal  with  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  circumstan- 
ces attendant  upon  this  act — concerning  which  he  said, 
blessed^  or  happy ^  if  you  please,  are  ye  if  ye  do  them — 


246  DEBATE    ON    FEET-WASHING. 


as  to  suppose  that  it  was  done  only  in  order  to  re 
lieve  the  feet  of  his  disciples  of  the  filth  accumulated 
upon  them  by  travel  ?  But,  my  friend  says,  it  was 
a  common  custom.  If  it  was  so  common  a  custom  as 
my  friend  would  have  us  believe,  is  it  not  a  little 
strange  that  during  all  the  time — over  three  years — 
that  Jesus  had  been  with  his  disciples,  he  had  never 
done  it  before?  Peter  knew  nothing  about  it,  as  the 
history  plainly  teaches;  for  Peter  did  not  know  what 
the  Saviour  was  about  to  do. 

My  friend  assumes  that  the  supper,  at  which  Christ 
washed  his  disciples'  feet,  was  eaten  at  Bethany,  six 
days  before  the  Passover.  I  shall  take  the  ground 
that  that  supper  was  eaten  at  Jerusalem ;  that  the 
washing  of  the  disciples'  feet  by  our  Saviour  occurred 
at  the  eating  of  the  dupper  at  Jerusalem.  But,  sup- 
posing it  to  have  been  eaten  at  Bethany,  then  it  was 
only  a  few  days  before  the  agony  that  preceded  his 
death.  If  feet-washing  was  a  common  custom — if  it 
had  ever  been  done  before  during  the  three  years  and 
a  half  that  Jesus  had  been  going  in  and  out  before 
them — how  does  my  friend  account  for  Peter's  igno- 
rance and  surprise  on  this  occasion  ? 

One  thought  more — about  the  washing  of  the 
priests'  hands  and  feet,  as  connected  with  the  service 
of  the  Lord.  My  friend  says  that  the  washing  of  the 
hands  and  feet  of  the  priests,  under  the  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation, took  place  outside  of  the  tabernacle  ;  there- 
fore he  insists  that  feet-washing,  under  the  Christian 
dispensation,  should  take  place  outside  of  the  church. 
I  must  say  it  seems  to  me  that  this,  as  well  as  some 
other  things  brought  up  by  my  friend,  is  a  little  far- 
stretched.  According  to  his  logic,  I  would  ask  him 
to  explain  one  thing:  he  claims  that  washing  of  the 
hands  and  feet  of  the  priests  at  the  entrance  of  the 
tabernacle  to  be  typical  of  baptism;  would  he  there- 
fore conclude  that  the   ordinance  of  baptism  should 


^ 


Mil.  quinter's  second  address.  247 

never  be  performed  inside  of  a  church?  But  I  do 
not  consider  this  to  have  anything  to  do  with  the 
matter.  The  point  I  contend  for  is  this:  that  under 
the  former  dispensation,  feet  waahiny  was  connecled 
lo'dh  the  service  of  God.  I  suppose  my  friend  will 
agree  witli  me  that  it  is  not  simply  a  mass  of  buikl- 
ing  materials — beams,  boards,  rafters,  and  shingles  — 
that  constitute  a  church  ;  I  suppose  if  he  and  I  had 
sometimes  to  worship  under  the  canopy  of  heaven,  if 
we  were  obedient  servants  of  Christ,  we  might  still 
rightfully  consider  ourselves  *' in  the  church"  of 
Christ;  and  that  if  baptism,  or  feet-washing,  were 
there  performed,  it  would  still  be  "  in  the  church." 
These  suggestions  corne  up  in  view  of  the  thoughts  he 
has  dropped,  and  the  difficulties  he  has  endeavored  to 
throw  in  our  way,  on  this  subject  of  feet-washing. 

I  shall  now  leave  the  matter  for  the  present,  so  far 
as  he  has  introduced  it,  though  some  thoughts  in  re- 
lation to  this  point  will  more  properly  come  up  at  a 
more  advanced  stage  in  this  discussion. 

5.  My  fifth  argument  to  prove  that  feet-washing  is 
a  Gospt'l  ordinance,  is  based  on  the  consideration  that, 
in  addition  to  the  characteristics  of  an  ordinance  which 
I  have  already  found  in  feet-washing,  there  are  also 
others  in  it,  contained  in  the  definition  of  an  ordinance. 

It  is  evident  from  the  following;  lanfrua^i-e  of  Christ, 
that  he  intended  his  disciples  to  observe  feet-wash- 
ing :  *'If  ye  know  these  things,  happy  are  ye  if  ye  do 
them."  1  have  already  looked  at  this  passage  under 
one  aspect — that  of  proving  the  spirituality  of  feet- 
washing — but  I  now  look  at  it  under  another,  viz  : 
that  of  proving  that  it  was  to  be  practically  observed 
by  the  disciplt'S.  The  definition  of  Webster,  is,  ''Ob- 
servance Commanded."  Now,  from  the  language  of 
Jesus,  under  consideration,  it  is  evident  that  the  dis- 
ciples were  not  only  to  deduce  a  certain  moral  or  les- 
son from  this  act  of  Christ,  but  were  actually  to  wash 


248  DEBATE    ON   FEET-WASHING. 

one  another's  feet.  ^'  If  ye  know  these  things,  happy 
are  ye  if  je  do  them."  What  things  did  Jesus  refer  to  ? 
Feet- washing;  was  certainly  one.  "  These'^  always  refers 
to  the  things  last  mentioned,  or  near  b}'.  Jesus  had 
just  washed  their  feet — it  was  the  last  thing  he  had 
done.  Then  this  must  have  been  one  of  the  things 
he  referred  to.  "  If  ye  do  them  " — do  what  ?  Wash 
one  another's  feet.  Then  there  was  to  be  an  actual 
observance  of  the  thing — i.  e.,  of'  washing  one  an- 
other's feet.  The  Saviour  did  not  say,  "  Ye  must  be 
humble  enough  to  be  willing  to  wash  one  another's 
feet ;"  neither  can  his  language  be  construed  to  mean 
that.  Nor  did  he  say,  "  Ye  must  be  willing  and 
ready  to  perform  any  acts  of  kindness  for  one  an- 
other." But  he  said,  "  If  ye  know  these  things^  ^^^VVJ 
are  ye  if  ye  do  them.''  Connect  this  with  the  language 
of  Christ,  "  I  have  given  you  an  exauiple,  that  ye 
should  do  as  I  have  done  to  you,"  and  the  disciples 
could  not  possibly  have  understood  anything  else  but 
that  they  were  to  wash  one  another's  feet.  And 
what  kind  of  a  Avashing  was  it  to  be?  Not  a  carnal 
washing,  as  we  have  proved,  but  a  religious  washing. 

Now,  till  my  friend  meets  some  of  these  argu- 
ments, and  does  away  with  the  strong  appearance  of 
the  spiritual  character  of  this  act  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  the  fact  that  he  commanded  his  disciples  to  do  it, 
I  shall  insist  that  I  have  sustained  the  first  division 
of  the  proposition  that  it  is  a  command  of  Jesus 
Christ,  an  ordinance  to  be  observed.  My  friend  has 
not  yet  denied,  and  I  -do  not  expect  that  he  will 
deny,  that  Christ  intended  that  his  disciples  should 
actually  wash  one  another's  feet.  I  now  ask  from 
him  a  plain  answer  to  the  question,  "Did  Christ  in- 
tend his  disciples  to  wash  one  another's  feet?"  I 
maintain  that  he  did  so  intend.  Well,  then,  feet- wash- 
ing was  an  "observance  coinmanded." 

I  do  not  know  that  I  would  have  been  called  upon 


MR.    QUINTER'S    second    ADDRESS.  249 

to  prove  the  spiritunlitj  of  this  ordinance.  Had  I  sim- 
ply proved  that  it  ^vas  an  "observance  connnanded,  " 
that  wouhl  have  been  amply  sufficient.  But  I  want 
to  throw  all  the  light  I  can  upon  these  things,  not 
alone  for  argument's  sake,  but  for  the  benefit  of  this 
community.  So,  though  I  do  not  think  the  proposi- 
tion required  me  to  dwell  upon  the  spirituality  of  the 
ordinance,  I  have  shown  that  our  Saviour's  washing 
of  the  disciples'  feet  was  no  mere  carnal  washing; 
that  it  had  a  more  spiritual  meaning,  a  far  higher 
purpose  in  view. 

People  sometimes  speak  about  doing  tliis,  that,  or 
the  other  thi?ig,  as  suhsfitutes  for  that  which  they  are 
commanded  to  do.  My  friend  belongs  to  a  church, 
or  people,  who  claim  not  to  believe  in  any  such  thing 
as  a  substitute  for  a  positive  command  of  Christ;  yet 
he  claims  here  that  any  menial  occupation,  such  as 
the  blacking  of  boots,  for  instance — anything  to  in- 
dicate our  humility  and  willingness  to  serve  our 
brother — is  a  sufficient  and  acceptable  substitute  for 
feet-washing.  But  when  Christ  Avaslied  his  disciples 
feet,  and  told  them  they  ought  to  do  tha  same — "  If  I, 
then,  your  Lord  and  Master,  have  washed  your  feet, 
t/e  also  ought  to  wash  one  anotlier^s  feeV — you  might 
black  boots,  or  wash  clothes  for  ages ;  sit  by  the  bed- 
side of  your  sick  and  dying  brother  for.  weeks  and 
months,  and  minister  to  his  needs  in  numberless  ways, 
as  circumstances  might  require;  and  yet  you  have 
not  followed  Christ's  example,  nor  obeyed  his  com- 
mand, which  was,  in  plain  word  and  deed,  to  wash  one 
another's  feet.  There  was  a  specific  act  that  he  per- 
formed and  commanded  ;  and  in  the  performance  of  that 
specific  act  only  can  his  disciples  follow  his  example, 
and  fulfill  his  command. 

I  will  now  leave  this  branch  of  m}^  proposition  until 
the  necessity  appears  for  further  remarks  upon  it. 

II.  I  shall  now  pass  to  the  second  division  of  the 


250  DEBATE    ON   FEET-WASIIING. 

proposition,  and  prove  the  perpetuity  of  this  ordi- 
nance ;  that  it  was  to  be  observed  by  the  disciples  of 
Christ  until  his  second  comincr. 

It  argues  this,  first,  from  its  implied  tendency.  It 
was  designed  to  promote  the  enjoyment  of  the  dis- 
ciples— •'  If  ye  know  these  things,  happy  are  ye  if  ye 
do  them."  Now,  as  God  is  declared  to  be  "  no  respecter 
of  persons,"  it  would  not  seem  to  be  in  harmony  with 
his  character  to  give  to  some  of  his  children  means 
of  grace  for  their  purity  and  enjoyment,  while  he 
withholds  the  same  means  from  others.  But  this  he 
has  done,  if  feet-washinor  was  designed  to  make  the 
first  disciples  happy,  and  it  was  given  to  them  on\y^ 
and  witliheM  from  the  believers  Avhich  succeeded  the 
first  disciples.  But  the  Lord  has  done  just  what  we 
might  expect  from  his  benevolent  and  impartial 
character.  The  faithfulness  and  devotion  of  his 
chihlren  constitute  the  condition  upon  which  his 
blessings  are  bestowed  upon  them.  And  if  we  want 
any  argument  in  addition  to  that  from  the  known 
character  of  God,  to  prove  the  perpetuity  of  feet- 
washing,  we  have  it  in  the  last  commission  of  Christ : 
"  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  what- 
soever I  have  commanded  you ;  and  lo,  I  am  with  ^'ou 
ahvay,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  (Mattliew 
xxviii  :  19,  20.)  Now,  as  the  disciples  were  to  teach 
the  converts  to  Christianity  in  all  nations  what  Christ 
had  commanded  them,  we  see  that  all  were  to  have 
the  same  means  of  grace  the  first  disciples  had.  And 
as  Christ  had  commanded  the  first  disciples  to  wash 
one  another's  feet,  they  now,  according  to  the  com- 
mission, were  required  to  teach  the  believers  among 
all  nations,  feet-washing;  for  they  were  to  teach 
others  what  he  had  taught  them.  And  in  this  way 
the  uieuiis  of  grace  will  be  equally  distributed  among 


MR.    m'cONNELL's    second    ADDRESS.  251 

all  believers;  thus  fcet-wasliing  would  be  perpetuated 
in  the  church,  and  bless  all  believers  with  its  in- 
fluence. That  Christ  commanded  his  disciples  to 
wash  one  another's  feet  is  undeniable.  If,  tiion,  they 
-were  faithful  to  the  charge  given  them  by  Christ, 
they  must  have  tnught  feet-washing  to  those  whom 
they  baptized.     [^Time  expired. 


[MR.  McCONXELL'S  SECOND  ADDRESS.] 

Gentlemen  Moderators — I  will  refer,  first,  to  the 
branch  of  the  subject  last  presented.  My  friend  has 
not,  I  presume,  finished  his  argument  from  the  com- 
mission— "Teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  what- 
soever I  have  commanded  you  ;  and  lo,  I  am  with  you 
alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  But  the 
syllogism  seems  to  be  this  :  as  the  apostles  were  to 
teach  all  thinojs  Christ  had  taught  them,  and  as  Christ 
had  taught  them  feet-washing,  therefore  they  were  to 
teach  all  nations  to  observe  feet-washing.  Before 
going  further,  I  would  ask  my  brother  whether  this 
statement  of  the  position  taken  by  him  in  this  argu- 
ment is  correct.  (Mr.  Quinter  acknowledges  it  to  be 
correct.) 

Now,  this  syllogism  is  perhaps  correct;  hut  it  does 
not  cover  the  entire  ground.  There  is  an  important 
issue  in  this  question  which  is  not  in  the  syllogism  ; 
not  in  its  major  nor  in  its  minor  premise,  nor  yet  in 
its  conclusion.  Or  perhaps  I  might  better  say  it 
covers  too  much  ground ;  it  proves,  if  it  prove  any- 
thing, entirely  too  njuch  to  sustain  m}^  friend's  posi- 
tion. Christ  taught  his  disciples  to  visit  the  sick  ;  he 
taught  them  to  feed  the  hungry,  and  to  clothe  the 
naked;  and  they  were  commanded  to  teach  them  to 
others  ;  therefore,  his  disciples,  evei-y  where  and  in  all 
ages,  ought  to  visit  the  sick,  feed  the  hungry,  clothe 


252  DEBATE  ON  FEET- WASHING. 

the  naked.  But  the  point  at  issue  is  this :  not- 
withstanding Christ  taught  these  things,  and  com- 
manded his  disciples  to  teach  them,  does  that  consti- 
tute them  puhlic  religious  ordinances  f  Was  the 
visiting  of  the  sick,  the  feeding  of  the  hungry,  the 
clothing  of  the  naked,  to  be  performed  in  the  publio 
assemhJy  of  the  church  f 

Tlie  main  point  at  issue,  and  the  only  one  worth 
spending  time  upon,  is  contained  in  that  phrase,  "in 
the  public  assembly  of  the  church."  I  do  not  propose 
to  entangle  myself  in  any  dispute  or  discussion  upon 
any  other  point  except  this  ;  but  this  I  want  you  to 
keep  clearly  and  distinctly  before  your  mind.  Whether 
feet-washing  was  a  family  institution,  or  a  religious 
institution,  a  carn;il  institution,  or  a  spiritual  institu- 
tion, will  not  materially  affect  the  argument.  The  one 
thing  which  my  brother  has  to  do  in  order  to  estab- 
lish his  position  on  an  impregnable  basis,  is  to 
prove,  by  the  command  or  example  of  Jes.us  Christ, 
or  of  his  apostles,  not  that  feet-washing  should  be 
practiced — that  I  have  already  acknowledged — but 
that  it  should  be  practiced  in  the  public  assembly  of 
the  church. 

My  friend  made  himself  somewhat  merry,  and  de- 
duced some  strange  conclusions  from  my  remarks  in 
reference  to  the  tabernacle  service.  He  would  argue, 
because  the  brazen  laver  was  at  the  entrance  to  the 
tabernacle,  and  the  priests  Avashed  before  entering  in  ; 
and  as  that  washing  in  the  brazen  laver  was  typical 
of  the  ordinance  of  baptism  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, therefore  baptism  must  never  be  performed 
inside  of  the  church  building!  This  is  the  difficulty 
in  which  he  seeks  to  entrap  me.  I  did  not  suppose 
that,  when  speaking  of  the  church  of  Christ,  my 
brother  meant  the  stone,  the  posts,  the  weather-board- 
ing, etc.,  of  this  building,  or  some  other  building  in 
which  the  Lord's  disciples  met.    Yet  such  is  the  sense 


Mil.  xm'connell's  second  address.  253 

in  which  he  uses  tlic  term.  I  do  not  go  so  low  as  that 
in  my  underst.indiiig  of  tlie  term  "  churcli."  I  do  not 
refer  to  the  builiUng,  but  to  tlie  organizalion.  I  mean 
the  public  assembly  of  those  who  are  the  members  of 
the  one  body  of  Christ.  In  saying  that  tlie  holy 
coui't  of  the  Jewish  tabei-nacle  was  a  type  of  Clirist's 
church,  I  did  not  mean  to  sny  it  resembled  a  meeting- 
house, but  that  it  was  typical  of  the  institution  or 
organization  known  as  tlie  church  of  Christ. 

Now,  if,  as  I  understand  my  friend  to  contend  (else 
there  is  no  relevancy  at  all  in  his  argument),  the  wash- 
ing of  the  hands  and  feet  of  the  priests  in  the  brazen 
laver,  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  was  typical  of 
feet- washing  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  since 
the  washinor  in  the  brazen  laver  was  not  inside  of  the 
tabernacle,  but  outside,  I  say  the  washing  of  feet 
should  be  outside  the  church,  and  not  inside — i.  e.,  not 
of  the  church  building,  but  of  the  church  organization. 
The  anti-type  must  conform  to  its  type.  Whatever  be 
the  anti-type  of  that  washing  in  the  brazen  laver,  it 
must  take  place,  not  in  the  church,  but  at  the  entrance 
into  the  church.  Then,  my  brother  Quinter  must  wash 
the  feet  of  his  candidates  before  even  baptizing  them, 
for  baptism  takes  them  into  the  church,  and  the  feet- 
washing  must  take  place  before  they  go  in. 

Baptism  is  not  an  ordinance  in  the  church;  I  sup- 
pose I  need  not  again  explain  that  I  mean  the  organi- 
zation known  as  the  church  of  Christ,  and  not  merely 
a  meeting-house.  I  must  confess  I  was  surprised  that 
my  friend,  who  has  usually  been  so  calm  and  dignified, 
and  has  felt  pained  at  some  pleasantries  of  mine, 
should  perpetrate  such  a  joke  as  to  ask  me  to  get  up 
and  say  whether  1  was  opposed  to  baptistries  in  meet- 
ing-houses ! 

xMy  friend  says,  Jesus  Christ  found  immersion  in 
the  world  when  he  came,  illustrating  it  by  the  case  of 
Pharaoh's  daughter,  who  went  down   to  the  river  to 


254  DEBATE  ON  FEET- WASHING. 

bathe ;  but  that  Jesus  Christ  took  it  out  of  the  world^ 
and  put  it  into  the  church.  In  like  maimer,  he  affirms, 
Christ  found  feet-washing  in  the  world,  but  took  it 
out  of  the  world  and  put  it  into  the  church.  But 
there  a.re  two  or  three  sophisms  about  this  thing  that 
I  will  point  out.  In  the  first  place,  Jesus  Christ  did 
not  take  immersion  out  of  the  world  and  put  it  info 
the  church  ;  baptism  is  not  an  ordinance  in  tlie  church, 
but  the  initiatory  ordinance  into  the  church.  My 
friend  would  place  feet-washing  in  the  church;  so, 
even  if  the  parallelism  of  either  the  cases  were  any 
argument,  the  cases  are  not  parallel  at  all. 

But  my  friend  goes  on  to  say  that  whether  feet- 
washing  was  a  custom  of  the  world  or  not,  whether  it 
was  an  old  custom  or  not,  is  not  the  question  ;  but 
whether  Jesus  Christ  gave  it  his  sanction;  and  to  this 
question  he  calls  upon  me  for  a  direct  answer.  I  an- 
swer— and  I  hope  the  answer  will  be  plain  and  posi- 
tive and  direct  enough  to  satisfy  my  triend — Jesus 
Christ  did  find  feet-washing  among  the  Jewish  people 
as  an  existing  custom.  He  did  give  it  his  sanction, 
by  his  own  example,  and  by  saying  to  his  disciples, 
"  Ye  ought  to  wash  one  another's  feet." 

But  right  there  is  a  little  point  of  some  importance. 
Having  answered  my  brother's  question,  I  now  ask 
him  to  answer  a  question  for  me:  ''In  sanctioning 
feet-washing,  did  Jesus  Christ  sanction  it  as  he  found 
it  and  as  he  practiced  it,  or  did  he  sanction  what  he 
did  not.  find,  and  as  he  did  not  practice  it?" 

I  acknowledge  that  he  sanctioned  the  custom  of 
feet-washing;  but  claim  that  he  sanctioned  it  as  he 
found  it  and  as  he  practiced  it.  Tliat  he  thus  sanc- 
tioned it,  is  no  proof  that  it  must  be  practiced  in  some 
other  way^  at  some  other  ti/ne,  and  under  entirely  dif- 
ferent circumstances.  A  physician  might  sanction  tne 
giving  of  lobelia  to  a  man  having  a  disordered  sto  ii- 
ach,  when  he  would  not  sauctiou  it  iu  the  case  of  a 


MR.    M'cOXNKLL's    second    ADDRESS.  255 

man  in  licaltli;  or  he  iiiifjht  sanction  bloorl-lettiiifi:  at 
one  time,  uhen  the  system  was  in  a  pletiioric  condi- 
tion, while  at  another  time,  when  tlie  system  liad  but 
just  enough  blood  in  it  to  sustain  life,  blood-letting 
would  be  certain  death. 

Now,  because  Jesus,  at  Simon's  private  house  in 
Bethany,  in  the  evening,  after  supper,  before  retiring 
to  rest,  washed  his  disciples'  feet,  soiled  with  the 
travel  of  the  day,  I  do  not  hold  that  feet-washing 
should  be  performed  in  the  public  assembly  of  the 
church,  and  when  the  feet  do  not  need  it.  I  am  ready 
to  obey  his  commands,  and  to  wash  the  disciples'  feet 
as  he  did  it,  in  the  private  family,  and  when  it  is 
needed  to  be  done  for  purposes  of  cleanliness  or 
comfort.  And  that  is  just  what  he  sa^'s — "I  have 
given  you  an  example,  that  ye  shoidd  do  it  as  I  have 
done  to  you:''  not  in  some  other  way,  under  other  cir- 
cumstances, and  for  some  entirely  different  purpose. 

My  brother  asks  me  if  I  would  wash  feet  because  I 
acknowledge  it  to  be  a  command  of  Jesus  Christ,  or 
merely  in  order  to  cleanse  the  feet,  as  in  common 
washing  ? 

I  reply,  I  would  do  it  for  the  same  reason  that  I 
would  clothe  the  naked,  or  feed  the  hungry.  When  I 
clothe  the  naked,  I  do  it  not  merely  to  cover  the  man's 
body — not  merely  for  that,  but  also  in  order  to  honor 
my  Lord  and  Master,  and  obey  his  commands.  When 
the  poor,  hungry,  starving  child  stands  at  my  door, 
and  asks  for  a  crumb  of  bread,  I  feed  it  not  merely 
that  it  may  eat,  but  from  the  enthusiasm  of  a  common 
humanity,  inspired  by  the  example  of  my  divine  Re- 
deemer; I  am  happy  before  God  that  I  have  the 
privilege  of  doing  it.  There  is  a  benefit  for  me,  the 
giver,  as  well  as  for  the  receiver — a  moral  and  spirit- 
ual benefit.  But  does  the  fact  that  moral  and  spiritual 
benefits  are  received  by  him  who  performs  such  acts 
of  kindness,  prove  that  clothing  the  naked  and  feeding 


256  DEBATE    ON   FEET-WASHING. 

the  hungry  are.  religious  ordinances,  to  be  celebrated 
in  the  public  assemble/  of  the  churchy  once  a  year,  and 
"when  not  at  all  needed? 

Now,  a  little  upon  that  word  ''blessed."  Our  com- 
mon version  says,  "happy"  are  ye  if  ye  do  these 
things.  My  friend  claims  that  the  term  ''blessed"  is 
preferable  here,  because  "blessed"  refers  to  enjoy- 
ments of  a  spiritual  nature  that  come  from  God;  while 
the  enjoyment  conferred  by  man  upon  his  fellow  man 
is  "  happiness."  I  am  not  ready  to  accept  this  state- 
ment. Let  us  read,  if  you  please,  some  of  the  pass- 
ages where  this  word  "  blessed  "  occurs.  Gen.  xiv  : 
20:  ''Blessed  be  the  most  high  God,  who  hath  de- 
livered thine  enemies  into  thy  hand,"  says  Melchiz- 
edek  to  Abram.  Certainly  the  blessings  are  not  rep- 
resented as  coming /rc»;^i  God,  in  that  case.  1  Chron., 
xxix:  HO:  "And  all  the  congregation  blessed  the 
Lord  God  of  their  fathers,"  etc.  Dan.  ii  :  19  :  ''  Then 
Daniel  blessed  the  God  of  heaven."  Does  that  mean 
that  he  made  God  happy  ?  I  Tim,,  i :  1:  "The  glo- 
rious Gospel  of  the  blessed  God,  \vhicli  was  committed 
to  my  trust."  Would  it  be  appropriate  to  use  the 
word  "  happy  "  instead  of  "  blessed '"  in  this  case  ? 
By  these,  and  many  other  instances  I  might  produce, 
you  will  see  the  shade  of  tliffeience  that  exists  in  the 
meaning  of  the  words  "  happy  "  and  "  blessed."  But 
all  this,  by  the  way;  it  has  no  particular  bearing  upon 
our  present  controversy. 

My  friend  places  great  stress  upon  the  fact  that  the 
washing  of  the  disciples'  feet  by  the  Saviour  was  not 
dune  merely  to  cleanse  them,  but  in  order  to  teach  a 
deep  moral  lesson,  a  lesson  of  humility.  Granted, 
most  willingly.  But  I  contend  that  my  friend,  in  this 
case,  adheres  to  the  letter  at  the  expense  of  the  spirit 
of  the  act,  and  fails  to  receive  the  full  benetit  of  the 
lesson  intended  to  be  conveyed,  to  exhibit  the  humil- 
ity it  was  designed  to  teach. 


MR.  m'connelt/s  second  address.  257 

Suppose  a  man  comes  to  my  door  from  a  neiglibor's 
across  the  street,  where  lie  has  just  partook  of  a 
sumptuous  meal,  and  I  urge  him  to  come  in  and  take  a 
seat  at  my  fr.ible,  and  eat  another  meal — am  I  fulfilling 
my  Saviour's  command  to  feed  the  hungry?  Or  sup- 
pose a  man  comes  to  me  clothed  in  broadcloth,  and 
everything  else  elegant  and  fashionable,  and  I  give 
him  another  suit  of  clothes — am  I  fulfilling  the  com- 
mand to  clothe  the  naked?  Suppose  I  go  to  one  of 
your  yearly  meetings,  and  wash  your  feet,  when  I 
know  that  just  before  you  have  had  them  thoroughly 
washed :  this  would  be  no  obedience  to  any  command 
of  my  Saviour.  But  to  wash  the  feet  of  my  brother 
at  any  time  when  he  needs  that  service  at  my  hands — 
that  I  consider  to  be  true  obedience.  There  is  no 
humility  manifested  in  my  washing  my  brother's  feet 
when  thoy  do  not  need  washing;  it  is  but  showing  off 
a  virtue — an  ostentatious  display  of  humility — that 
may  or  may  not  be  actually  possessed  hj  the  individ- 
ual making  this  public  exhibition  of  it. 

I  now  call  your  attention  to  one  or  two  points  in 
connection  with  the  occasion  when  Christ  washed  his 
disciples'  feet,  to  the  fifne  and  the  place.  "Where  was 
it  (lone  ?  At  Bethany,  in  the  house  of  Simon.  When  ? 
Two  days  before  the  feast  of  the  Passover.  To  make 
this  clear  to  every  one  who  will  pay  respectful  atten- 
tion, I  will  inquire,  first,  at  what  time  did  Judas  go  to 
coujmune  with  the  chief  priests?  After  Satan  had 
entered  into  him.  (Luke,  xxii :  3,  4.)  When  did  Satan 
enter  into  Judas?  After  he  had  received  the  sop, 
(John,  xiii :  27.) 

Now,  this  was  all  after  the  feet-washing,  the  same 
night,  and  at  the  house  of  Simon,  in  Bethany.  And 
the  feet-washing  was  not  done  at  the  supper  of  the 
Passover,  when  the  eucharist  was  instituted,  but  some 
days  before,  in  -a^  private  house,  after  supper,  before 
retiring  to  rest. 
17 


258  DEBATE  ON   FEET-WASHING. 

I  suppose  I  have  not  time  now ;  but  in  some  future 
speech  before  this  discussion  closes,  I  shall  take  the 
opportunity  to  separate  some  things  in  connection 
with  this  matter  that  have  been  confounded  in  the 
minds  of  our  Tonker  friends  for  years  past,  and  have 
been  the  means  of  leading  them  into  error  on  this 
subject  of  feet-washing. 

I  have  already  shown  that  the  feet-washing  per- 
formed by  Christ  exactly  corresponded  in  all  respects 
with  the  custom  of  feet-washing  as  it  then  existed  in 
the  world,  except  that  in  this  case  it  was  the  master, 
instead  of  the  servant,  that  performed  the  menial 
service. 

There  is  but  one  other  reference  to  feet-washing  in 
the  New  Testament,  viz  :  I  Tim.,  v  :  10.  There  it  is 
found  associated,  not  with  religious  ordinances,  to  be 
performed  in  the  public  assembly  of  the  church,  but 
with  "good  works" — raising  children,  lodging  stran- 
gers, relieving  the  afflicted,  etc. — all  personal  and 
private  deeds.     [Time  expired. 


[MR.  QUINTERS  THIRD  ADDRESS.] 

Friendly  MoBERATOES— I  wish  first  to  give  a  little 
attention  to  the  subject  of  the  priests  washing  their 
hands  and  feet.  I  noticed  that  point  this  morning 
simply  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  feet-washing 
had  once,  by  the  command  of  God,  been  connected 
with  the  service  of  God.  I  did  not  claim  that  wash- 
ing in  the  brazen  laver,  or  any  other  washing,  under 
the  Mosaic  law,  was  typical  of  feet-washing  under  the 
Gospel.  If  my  friend  takes  that  position — that  the 
feet-washing  under  the  law  was  typical  ot  feet-washing 
under  the  Gospel — he  at  once  gives  to  the  Gospel  dis- 
pensation the  ordinance  of  feet-washing.  If  he  does 
not  consider  it  to  be  typical  of  feet-washing  under 


MR.  QUINTER's  third    ADDRESS.  259 

the  Gospel,  since  I  do  not  claim  it  to  be  typical, 
■whether  it  was  performed  inside  or  outside  of  the  tab- 
ernacle, has  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject.  I  wanted 
to  show  that  the  priests  washed  their  feet — that  my 
friend  will  not  deny.  I  went  a  step  further,  and 
showed  that  this  washing  of  their  feet  was  connected 
■\vitli  the  solemn  service  of  God;  that,  too,  I  think  he 
^vill  not  deny.  Those  priests  had  their  homes  and 
their  families  ;  what  they  did  there  I  know  not,  nor  is 
it  anything  to  the  purpose.  The  feet-washing  I  re- 
ferred to  was  that  connected  with  the  service  of  God, 
and  not  any  washing  performed  at  their  homes  or  in 
their  families.  The  point  I  wished  to  make  was  this: 
Some  persons  seem  to  think  that  feet-washing  is  an 
act  of  too  low  and  undignified  a  character  to  be  made 
a  religious  ordinance  ;  and  to  controvert  that  idea,  if 
my  friend,  or  any  one  in  this  audience  might  enter- 
tain it,  I  wanted  to  show  that  it  was  not  so  low  and 
undignified  an  act  but  that  God,  under  a  former  dis- 
pensation, had  connected  it  with  the  holy  and  solemn 
worship  of  himself. 

My  friend,  in  the  conclusion  of  his  last  address, 
insinuated  that  the  washing  of  feet  when  they  were 
not  filthy,  was  an  uncalled-for  operation,  and  not  the 
fulfillment  of  a  command  of  Christ.  Let  me  ask  my 
brother,  when  the  Jewish  priests  were  about  to  enter 
the  tabernacle,  did  they  wash  their  hands  and  feet  be- 
cause they  were  filthy?  No;  though  they  were  as 
clean  as  any  method  of  cleansing  could  make  them, 
they  must  still  wash  before  entering,  because  the 
solemn  injunction  of  Jehovah  was  upon  them.  So 
under  the  Gospel  dispensation.  This  feet-washing  is 
not  done  for  the  sake  of  cleansing  the  feet,  but  as  the 
representation  or  symbol  of  an  inward  or  spiritual 
cleansing.  The  hands  and  feet  may  be  clean  when 
the  heart  is  not  pure. 

My  friend  asserts  that  it  is  no  obedience  to  Christ's 


260  DEBATE  ON  FEET-WASHINa. 

commands  to  wash  tlie  feet  when  they  are  not  dirty. 
But  is  tliis  conclusion  a  safe  one  ?  In  the  communion 
we  partake  of  the  sacred  emblems,  the  bread  and 
wine  ;  does  my  friend  claim  that  this  need  not  be  done 
except  when  we  are  hungry?  No,  because  these  are 
taken  for  another  purpose.  So  the  washing  of  the 
body  in  baptism  is  not  alone  for  "  the  putting  away  the 
filth  of  the  flesh."  It  has  a  spiritual  import,  conveys 
spiritual  lessons  and  benefits.     So  with  feet-washing. 

And  here  I  wish  to  say  that  the  feet- washing  per- 
formed by  the  Saviour  was  feet-washing  under  a  new 
aspect.  Before  that  time,  in  the  cases  referred  to  by 
my  friend,  back  even  to  the  time  of  Abraham,  there 
was  water  brought,  and  the  guests  washed  their  own 
feet,  or  the  servant  of  the  house  washed  their  feet. 
But  in  the  case  of  the  feet-washing  of  Jesus,  it  was 
neither  of  these.  The  disciples  were  to  wash  07ie 
another^  feet.  It  was  neither  the  least  among  them 
that  was  to  wash  the  feet  of  the  others,  nor  the 
greatest ;  among  them  there  was  to  be  no  least,  and 
no  greatest.  This  fact  of  indiscriminate  service  pre- 
sents feet-washing  to  us  under  a  new  aspect.  We 
shall  look  at  this  point  more  particularly  in  the  fur- 
ther development  of  the  subject ;  for  the  present  I 
simply  call  your  attention  to  the  fact. 

I  was  upon  the  second  division  of  the  proposition, 
viz:  upon  the  perpetuity  of  this  ordinance;  that  it 
was  designed  to  be  continued  in  the  church  of  Christ 
until  his  second  coming. 

My  third  argument  in  support  of  the  perpetuity  of 
this  ordinance,  is  founded  on  the  occasion  and  cir- 
cumstances that  called  forth  the  act  on  the  part  of 
our  Saviour.  In  clothing  my  ideas  upon  this  subject 
in  lant]^uao;e,  I  shall  read  from  the  comuientaries  of 
Olshausen  ;  not  in  order  to  present  him  as  authority, 
but  because  the  ideas  which  I  would  present  are  ex- 
pressed by  him  in  language  that  so  well  answers  my 


MR.  quinter's  third  adcress.  261 

purpose.  I  read  from  his  remarks  on  the  thirteenth 
chapter  of  JdIhi's  gospel : 

*'  As  regards  the  washing  of  the  feet  itself,  in  the  first 
place,  the  occasion  that  induced  it  is  clearly  seen  from 
the  passage,  Luke,  xxii :  24,  ff,  where  mention  is  made  of 
a  strife  among  the  disciples.  [Uemark  by  the  speaker : 
It  will  be  seen  that  Olshausen,  with  a  number  of  other 
wi'iters  and  harmonists  of  Scripture,  connects  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Saviour  as  set  forth  in  the  twenty-second 
chapter  of  Luke,  with  the  feet-washing  recorded  in  the 
thirteenth  chapter  of  John.]  This  led  to  an  act  which 
set  forth  in  the  most  striking  manner  the  deepest  self- 
humiliation  of  Christ,  and  also  recommended  the  same 
to  his  disciples.  Secondly,  this  proceeding,  according 
to  the  design  of  the  Lord,  was  to  have  a  symbolical 
significance.  For  while  baptism  relates  to  that  puri- 
fication and  renovation  of  the  ivhole  man,  which  hap- 
pens only  once,  the  washing  of  the  feet  was  intended 
to  illustrate  the  daily  cleansing  from  that  contamina- 
tion of  the  world  which  even  the  regenerate  man  can 
not  avoid,  but  which  would  become  injurious  to  him 
only  in  case  he  did  not  immediately  endeavor  to  re- 
move it.  Thus  we  are  not  so  much  to  suppose  a 
double  sense  in  the  words,  as  to  recognize  a  symboli- 
cal character  in  the  transaction — a  case  which  fre- 
quently occurs  in  the  evangelical  history.  (Matt.,  xxi : 
18,  if.,  Tor  the  symbolic  action  of  the  Saviour  in  curs- 
ing the  fig-tree.)  Such  a  symbolical  admonition  was 
more  than  ever  necessary  for  the  disciples  at  this 
particular  time.  They  were  about  to  encounter  cir- 
cumstances in  which  their  faith  might  easily  be  shaken  ; 
hence  it  was  important  for  them  to  know  that  one 
sinful  emotion,  a  single  instance  of  being  overtaken 
by  surprise,  would  not  sufiice  to  wrest  them  from  their 
state  of  grace,  but  that  they  might  daih^  receive  fresh 
pardon  for  such  defilements." 

In  the  above  language  there  is  sucli  a  plain  refer- 


262  DEBATE    ON   FEET-WASHING. 

ence  to  the  design  and  practical  tendency  of  feet- 
washing,  that  we  can  not  fail  to  understand  the  author 
in  any  other  possible  way  but  that  he  regarded  the 
practice  of  feet  wasliing  among  the  disciples  as  of 
binding  authority.  But  it  appears  that  while  he  re- 
garded it  as  beneficial  to  the  disciples,  he  did  not 
understand  it  to  be  designed  by  Christ  to  be  a  stand- 
ing rite  in  the  church,  or  for  any  but  the  apostles. 
This  view  of  the  subject,  however,  does  not  seem  to 
me  to  be  either  consistent  or  correct.  If  it  was  to  be 
to  the  disciples  all  that  Olshausen  declares  it  was, 
and  if  they  needed  it  as  much  as  he  thinks  they  did, 
why  should  not  other  believers  as  well  as  the  apostles 
have  its  advantages,  for  surely  all  have  need  of  them  ? 
Have  not  selfish  ambitions,  and  strife  for  pre-emi- 
nence, and  feelings  of  envy,  and  a  spirit  of  caste  in 
the  church,  building  up  a  wall  of  partition  between 
different  classes,  a  spirit  of  pride,  and  a  deep  and 
extensive  want  of  a  real  gospel  feeling  of  brotherly 
love  which  would  lead  to  mutual  forbearance,  mutual 
sympathy,  to  the  preferring  of  one  another,  the  help- 
m%  of  one  another,  and  the  b-earing  of  one  another's 
burdens — have  not,  we  say,  these  feelings  and  these 
wants  ever  been  a  curse  to  the  church?  They  have 
dried  up  her  life-streams,  have  destroyed  her  influence, 
have  rendered  her  a  reproach  to  her  enemies,  and  a 
stumbling  block  to  the  wicked.  We  want  all  the 
apostles  had,  and  we  believe  our  blessed  Lord  intended 
us  to  have  it ;  and  in  sending  out  the  disciples  he 
charged  them  to  teach  others  all  that  he  had  com- 
manded them. 

We  see  that  the  occasion  which  called  forth  this 
action  on  the  part  of  the  Saviour  was  the  improper 
strife  among  his  disciples  as  to  which  of  them  shouhl 
be  the  greatest.  Need  I  say  that  humanity  to-day, 
as  represented  in  the  Christian  church,  is  no  better 
than  it  was   eighteen    hundred    years    ago  ?     Could 


MR.    QUINTER's    third    ADDRESS.  263 

James  say.  "  Elias  was  a  man  subject  to  like  passions 
as  we  are  ;"  and  can  not  I,  can  not  you — can  not  all 
of  us,  acknowledge  that  we  are  men  of  like  passions, 
even  with  the  apostles  themselves?  If  humanity  is 
no  better  than  it  was  eighteen  hundred  years  ago — if 
we  are  no  better  men  than  the  apostles — do  we  not 
need  all  the  helps  we  can  get,  all  the  assistance  that 
was  afforded  them,  in  order  to  cultivate  that  high 
standard  of  moral  and  spiritual  excellence  necessary 
for  communion  with  God,  and  a  residence  with  him 
in  Heaven?  Or  has  the  standard  of  holiness  and 
purity  become  lower?  Can  a  soul  enter  the  bright, 
pure  climes  of  Heaven,  to-day,  with  less  holiness  and 
purity  than  was  necessary  in  the  days  of  the  apostles? 
Who  dare  say  it  can.  Then,  if  Heaven  is  equally 
pure,  and  humanity  equally  depraved,  we  maintain  the 
necessity  of  having  all  the  helps  in  Christian  life  that 
the  apostles  possessed.  The  necessitj^  that  called  out 
feet-washing  for  them,  at  that  day,  exists  for  us  at 
this  day,  always  has  existed,  and  always  will  exist  till 
the  Lord  comes  again.  Then  a  change  will  take 
place  which  will  forever  preclude  our  liability  to  pride, 
apostacy,  and  every  other  sin,  and  then  these  means 
of  ^race  will  be  withdrawn.  Until  that  time  we  need 
theli  in  all  their  fullness. 

I  read  to  you  this  forenoon  the  remarks  of  those 
great  commentators,  Dr.  Scott  and  Dr.  Clarke,  upon 
the  command  to  the  priests  to  wash  their  hands  and 
feet  always  before  entering  the  tabernacle  to  minister 
in  the  service  of  God.  What  a  lesson  this  fact  taught 
to  ministers  of  Christ,  how  pure  and  holy  they  ought 
to  be.  But  if  their  action  can  teach  us  a  useful  lesson, 
how  much  more  useful  and  impressive  would  it  be  for 
us  to  do  the  thing  itself!  I  am  now  arguing  the  per- 
petuity of  this  ordinance  from  the  eftect  it  was  in- 
tended to  produce.  Whatever  effect  feet-washing  ever 
had,  whatever  it  did  for  the  apostles,  it  may  do  for  us. 


264  DEBATE  ON  FEET- WASHING. 

Now,  I  want  to  refer  again  to  another  point  which 
I  have  already  touched  upon.  Feet-washing  as  com- 
manded by  Christ  is  presented  in  a  different  aspect 
from  that  in  wliich  it  appeared  before.  What  is  it 
that  is  commanded?  Did  Christ  say,  "When  you 
brethren,  my  disciples,  get  settled,  if  you  ever  do,  and 
have  your  families  and  domestic  matters  all  arranged 
around  you,  and  any  of  your  Christian  brethren  come 
along  in  their  travels,  you  must  wash  their  feet?" 
No,  no — that  is  not  the  command.  "  Let  him  that  is 
least  among  you  perform  this  act  of  service  ?"  No. 
Or,  "  he  that  is  greatest  among  you  ?"  No,  not  even 
that;  that  rule  would  lead  to  difficulty  immediately. 
■For  instance,  here  is  my  friend,  Mr.  McConnell,  trav- 
eling somewhere  with  a  number  of  brethren  of  lesser 
note;  they  stop  at  night;  it  becomes  necessary  that 
their  feet  should  be  washed ;  now,  Mr.  McConnell 
being  unanimously  acknowledged  to  be  the  greatest 
and  best  man  among  them,  it  of  course  falls  upon  hira 
to  wash  the  feet  of  the  entire  crowd.  But  perhaps 
the  company  consist  of  a  number  of  men  whose  abili- 
ties are  nearly  equal ;  Mr.  A.  is  modest,  and  thinks 
that  Mr.  B.  is  the  greatest  man  among  them,  and 
therefore  insists  Mr.  B.  shall  wash  the  feet  of  a^  the 
rest ;  Mr.  B.  resigns  all  claim  to  that  position  in  favor 
of  Mr,  C,  who  refuses  to  recognize  his  own  superi- 
ority over  all  the  rest;  and  so  on,  down  to  Mr.  Z.,by 
which  time  the  contest  has  degenerated  into  a  bitter 
dispute  and  a  universal  dissatisfaction.  I  will  tell 
you  a  better  way  than  that.  That  is,  the  way  Christ 
commanded.  Without  waiting  to  dispute  as  to  who 
is  greatest,  or  who  is  least,  let  all  wash  one  onother's 
feet ;  all  alike,  all  brethren  together,  all  members  of 
the  family  of  our  blessed  Lord  who  has  set  for  us  this 
beautiful  example.     [Time  exj.)ired. 


MR.    m'CONNELL's   tried    ADDRESS.  265 


[MR.  McCONNELL'S  THIRD  ADDRESS. 

Gentlemen  and  Moderators — My  friend's  con- 
cluding remarks,  in  wliich  he  demolishes  the  idea  tliat 
he  tliat  is  greatest  should  do  the  feet-washing  for  the 
entire  crowd,  seemed  to  me  to  be  uncalled  for — in  no 
■NN^ay  pertinent  to  the  subject  we  are  discussing — as  I 
have  made  no  such  proposition  as  that,  the  difficulties 
of  which  he  so  vividly  sets  forth  ;  consequently,  I  need 
not  spend  any  time  in  replying  to  that  portion  of  his 
remarks.  I  think  I  made  my  meaning  perfectly 
clear ;  I  would  have  no  greatest,  and  no  least — no 
distinctions  whatever  as  to  superiority  or  inferiority — 
but  all  one  family  of  equals  in  the  household  of  the 
Lord. 

My  friend's  theory  and  practice  concerning  feet- 
washing,  presents  a  strange  inconsistency,  which  finds 
no  parallel  in  the  religious  world,  and  nothing  -ap- 
proaching a  parallel  case,  except  among  our  pedo- 
baptist  brethren,  who,  finding  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  John's  immersing  each  person,  who  came  to  him 
individually,  in  the  river  Jordan,  imagine  the  whole 
company  assembled  in  one  place,  and  John  sprinkling 
the  multitude  with  a  palm-branch!  So  my  friend 
earnestly  urges  the  necessity  of  a  '•  daily  purification 
from  that  contamination  of  the  world  which  even  the 
regenerate  man  can  not  avoid,"  "  that  they  might 
daily  receive  fresh  pardon  for  such  defilements  " — 
this  is  his  theory,  but  as  it  would  prove  somewhat 
troublesome  in  practice,  he  gets  all  his  congregation, 
or  a  number  of  con*:jregations,  to^-ether  in  a  laroje  meet- 
ing-house  once  a  yeai\  and  makes  a  general  job  of  it,  to 
answer  the  purpose  for  another  year  ! 

But  let  us  examine  into  this  matter  a  little  more  at 
length.  The  substance  of  my  brother's  claim  in  be- 
half of  feet-washing,  as  set  forth  in  his  last  speech,  is 
based  upon  the  theory  that,  '^  w'hile  baptism  relates 


266  DEBATE    ON    FEET-WASHING. 

to  that  purification  and  renovation  of  the  ivliole  man 
Avhich  happens  only  once^  the  wasliing  of  the^feet  was 
intended  to  illustrate  the  daily  cleansing  from  that 
contamination  of  the  world  which  even  the  regenerate 
man  can  not  avoid.  And  he  intensified  this  matter, 
as  you  will  remember,  by  making  an  earnest  appeal 
to  me,  to  us  all,  as  to  whether  humanity  is  any  better 
now  than  it  was  in  the  days  of  our  Saviour  ?  Whether 
selfish  ambitions,  and  strife  for  pre-eminence,  and 
feelings  of  envy,  and  jealousies,  and  bickerings,  and 
sinful  lusts  in  manifold  shapes,  are  not  as  prevalant 
in  the  church  to-day  as  they  were  among  the  dis- 
ciples while  Christ  was  yet  with  them?  Whether  we 
do  not  need  all  the  help  we  can  get,  all  the  assistance 
that  w^as  afforded  them,  in  order  to  cultivate  that 
high  standard  of  moral  and  spiritual  excellence  neces- 
sary for  a  communion  with  God,  and  a  residence 
with  him  in  Heaven  ?  To  all  of  which  I  answer,  "Yes, 
yes — a  thousand  times  yes."  Humanity  is  the  same 
that  it  was  eighteen  hundred  years  ago ;  and  he  who 
would  arise  from  earth  to  heaven,  needs  every  help 
that  he  can  get.  We  do  need — even  the  best  of  men 
need — a  daily  cleansing  from  the  contaminations  of 
sin.  And  if  this  cleansing  is  to  be  symbolized  by  a 
washing  of  the  feet,  we  need  a  daily  feet-washing. 
And  if  this  feet-washino-  is  an  ordinance  desiij^ned  to 
be  performed  in  the  public  assembly  of  the  church, 
then  must  the  church  be  assembled  every  night  to 
perform  this  symbolical  act — unless  we  intend  to  lay 
our  sins  over  from  day  to  day,  and  let  them  accumu- 
late for  a  year,  and  then  have  an  annual  feet-wash- 
ing, to  dispose  of  them  all  at  once  !  I  have  no  power 
to  reason,  if  this  is  not  a  correct  conclusion  from  his 
premises.  It  demands,  if  his  reasoning  is  sound,  the 
necessity  for  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  times  as 
much  feet-washing  as  he  is  willing  to  accept,  I  ven- 
ture to  say. 


MR.    m'cONNKLL's    third    ADDRESS.  267 

t 

My  friend  h;is  read  to  you  extracts  from  those 
learned  comujentators,  A«lam  Clarke  and  Dr.  Scott. 
The  former  makes  some  beautiful  remarks  in  reference 
to  the  j)riests  washing  their  liands  and  feet  in  tlie 
brazen  laver  at  the  entrance  to  the  tabernacle  :  what 
a  lesson  it  teaches  to  ministers  of  the  Gospel  of  the 
present  day  !  Yes,  it  does.  But  the  priests  washed 
daily;  it  taught  them  a  c?a«7y  lesson.  But  has  that 
anything  to  do  with  feet-washing?  If  so,  it  teaches 
the  necestjity  o^  daily  feet-washing. 

In  this  connection,  permit  me  to  say  that  here  is  a 
mistake  of  Dr.  Clarke's,  which  I  must  not  omit  to  no- 
tice. It  may  sound  like  presumption  in  a  man  of  my 
caliber,  out  here  in  the  wilds  of  the  West,  to  assert 
that  Adam  Clarke  could  make  a  mistake ;  still,  what  is 
said  is  said.  Dr.  Clarke  supposes  that  the  priests, 
under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  in  the  services  they 
performed,  in  the  outer  court  and  holy  place  of  the 
tabernacle,  were  typical  of  the  ministers  of  the  Gos- 
pel, as  a  separate  profession  or  class.  Not  so  ;  for 
in  the  day  we  live,  under  this  dispensation,  every 
Christian  is  a  priest;  and  Aaron,  the  high  priest,  was 
typical  of  our  high  priest,  Jesus  Christ. 

While  upon  this  subject,  we  will,  if  you  please, 
briefly  review  this  matter  of  types  and  anti-types,  as 
connected  with  the  Jewish  tabernacle  and  the  church 
of  God.  The  holy  place  was  typical  of  the  church 
under  this  dispensation.  In  coming  from  the  outer 
court,  what  was  first  found  ?  The  sacrifice  upon  the 
altar  of  burnt  offering;  the  priest  approached  the 
alter  of  burnt  offering,  which  typified  the  sinner  com- 
ing to  Jesus  Christ  by  faith.  Then  he  passed  on  to 
the  brazen  laver  and  washed,  which  typified  the  sin- 
ner being  cleansed  from  his  sins  in  baptism.  -  The 
priest  then  passed  into  the  holy  court,  and  approached 
the  golden  candlestick,  which  was  typical  of  entrance 
into  the  church  and  the  illumination  of  the  heart  by 


268  DEBATE    qN   FEET-WASIIIXG. 

the  Spirit  or  Word  of  God.  The  priest  then  pro- 
ceeded to  the  altar  of  incense,  and  offered  up  incense 
to  God,  T\diich  was  typical  of  our  approach  to  the 
altar  of  prayer,  offering  the  incense  of  prayer  and 
praise  to  our  Heavenly  Father.  Once  in  seven  days 
the  priest  changed  the  loaves  of  bread ;  and  once  in 
seven  days  the  priests  in  this  dispensation  remove 
tlie  bread  of  communion  from  the  table.  The  paral- 
lel is  complete;  type  and  anti-type  answer  to  each 
other  as  com})letely  as  hand  answers  to  hand.  The 
priest  going  in  daily  and  washing  his  hands  and 
feet  at  the  brazen  Uivor,  did  not  intimate  a  daily  repe- 
tition of  the  ordinance  of  baptism  ;  but  simply  kept 
daily  and  constantly  before  the  people  the  thought 
that  the  sinner  might  subject  himself  at  any  time  to 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  approach  the  altar  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

Now,  a  word  as  to  the  occasion  that  called  forth  the 
act  of  feet-washing  by  our  Saviour.  My  friend  says, 
the  same  occasion  that  called  forth  feet- washing  then 
would  demand  it  7ioiv.  I  reply,  the  same  occasion, 
the  same  circumstances,  can  never  again  occur; 
hence,  according  to  his  reasoning,  there  will  never  be 
any  more  necessity  for  feet-washing.  But  I  deem 
this  reasoning  to  be  wrong.  The  washing  of  feet, 
and  every  other  act  of  brotherly  service  and  kindness, 
will  continue  so  long  as  Christ  has  a  people  on  earth 
to  observe  his  example  and   carry  out  his  commands. 

My  friend  claims  spirituality  for  feet-washing,  be- 
cause Christ  said  to  Peter,  "  What  I  do  thou  knowest 
not  now,  but  thou  shalt  know  hereafter."  Now  I 
ask  my  friend  this  question :  What  did  Peter  learn 
about  it  that  he  did  not  then  know?  This  much  I 
will  venture  to  say:  Whatever  he  may  have  found 
out,  he  has  never  told  us  anything  about  feet-wash- 
ing. My  brother  will  remember  it,  if  he  has.  But 
he  did  learn  this  important  lesson,- and  this  lesson  he 


MR.  m'cONXELI/S    TIirUD    ADDRESS.  269 

hns  tan_i];lit  ns  ;  t]i:it  lie  that  liurnldeth  himself  shall  be 
exalted.  Peter  Avas  an  ambitious  man  ;  he  wanted  to 
stand  at  the  head  of  affairs  ;  he  wanted  to  be  Secre- 
tary of  State  in  Christ's  kingdom,  and  made  applica- 
tion for  that  position,  or  some  other.  But  their  Lord 
and  Master,  their  Chief,  taught  them  a  most  impres- 
sive lesson  by  performing  the  menial  service  of 
washing  their  feet.  And  they  learned  that  lesson  of 
humility,  not  only  in  the  matter  of  washing  one  an- 
other's feet,  but  in  all  the  relations  of  life;  for  there 
are  no  expressions  of  selfish  ambition  on  recoi'd  after 
Jesus  Christ  rose  from  the  dead.  And  I  would  that 
we  could  all  learn  this  solemn  lesson  of  deep  humil- 
itv  from  seein<j  the  God  of  Heaven,  clothed  in  the 
habiliment  of  a  steward,  washing  the  feet  of  his  dis- 
ciples on  earth. 

Said  my  friend,  in  one  of  his  speeches  :  *'  The  spir- 
ituality of  feet-washing  is  inferred  from  the  fact  that 
the  disciples  did  not  understand  it,"  Persons  infer 
a  great  many  things  from  what  they  do  not  under- 
stand, and  that  is  the  reason  their  inferences  are  fre- 
quently so  ridiculous.  I  do  not  deny  that  there  may 
be  spirituality  connected  with  feet- washing.  Every- 
thing done  in  the  name  and  for  the  honor  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  has  a  spiritual  tendency.  We  are  com- 
manded, ''  Whatever  ye  do,  in  word  or  deed,  do  all  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  Wives  are  commanded 
to  submit  themselves  to  their  husbands,  and  husbands 
to  love  their  wives,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  And 
there  is  as  much  spirituality  in  a  wife  obeying  her 
husband,  or  a  husband  loving  his  wife,  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord,    as  in  washing  a  neighbor's  feet. 

When  my  time  expired,  at  the  conclusion  of  my 
former  speech,  I  was  referring  to  the  case  of  the 
widow,  recorded  in  I  Tim.,  v  :  x.  I  remarked  that  feet- 
washing  in  tliat  case,  the  only  instance  on  record  in 
the  Scriptures  after  the  death  of  Christ,  was  associated 


270  DEBATE  ON   FEET- WASHING. 

with  the  reariTig  of  children,  lodo;iTio;  strangers, 
relieving  the  afflicted,  and  diligently  following  every 
good  work.  The  acts  with  which  feet-washing  is  as- 
sociated, indicate  where  it  should  be  classed.  If  it 
had  been  associated  with  public  ordinances,  we  would 
have  srood  reason  for  inferrino;  that  feet-washinoj  also 
was  a  public  ordinance ;  but  being  classed  among 
"  good  works,"  personal  and  private  acts,  we  have 
the  same  good  reason  for  inferring  that  feet-Av ashing 
belongs  among  them,  and  is  not  a  public  ordinance. 
Paul  was  not  speaking  of  public  ordinances  at  all. 
Why  did  not  Paul  suggest  or  inquire  whether  this 
widow  had  been  baptized,  or  had  partaken  regularly  of 
the  communion  ?  There  can  be  but  one  of  two 
answers:  either  because  it  was  unimportant,  altogether 
unimportant,  or  because  baptism  and  the  communion, 
being  public  ordinances,  her  attendance  upon  these 
would  be  well  known,  so  that  no  special  inquiry  Avould 
be  made  in  reference  to  that  matter.  My  friend 
will  not  accept  the  former  solution,  and  say  that 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  of  no  importance. 
Now,  after  all  that  has  been  said  by  my  friend  and 
by  myself,  I  call  your  attention  again  to  the  one 
issue  between  us  in  this  controversy.  There  is  but 
one  single  point  of  disagreement ;  in  reference  to  the 
other  points  brought  up,  we  are  both  on  the  same 
side.  We  are  agreed  that  Christ  washed  the  feet  of 
his  disciples;  that  he  commanded  his  disciples  to  do 
the  same;  that  the  act  was  intended  to  teach  to  them 
and  to  the  believers  in  every  age  a  lesson  of  humility  ; 
that  there  should  be  no  greatest,  and  no  least,  among 
disciples  of  Christ,  but  all  brethren  in  the  one  family 
of  our  Lord;  that  the  washing  of  one  another's  feet 
should  be  continued,  as  long  as  the  church  of  Christ 
remains;  in  all  these  points,  I  say,  we  are  agreed.' 
We  disagree  on  only  one  point,  and  I  wish  to  keep 
your  minds  fixed  upon  that  as  being  the  issue,  the 


MR.    QUINTEr's    fourth    ADDRESS.  271 

only  issue  between  us :  and  that  is,  should  the  wash- 
ing of  feet  be  performed  as  a  reJiyious  ordinance,  in 
[he  public  assembli/  of  the  Church't  My  brother  need 
not  waste  his  time  in  arguing  any  other  point  con- 
nected with  the  proposition ;  I  will  yiekl  them  all — 
only  so  he  will  establish  his  position  upon  this  point. 
This  he  can  do  by  showing  either  the  command  or  the 
example  of  Christ,  or  of  his  apostles,  for  such  feet- 
washing  in  the  public  assembly.  If  any  such  instance 
or  command  is  to  be  found  in  the  sacred  records,  my 
friend,  who  has  prepared  himself  so  diligently  and  so 
well  for  this  discussion,  can  produce  it,  and  end  this 
whole  controversy  in  very  little  time.  He  may  read 
from  Olshausen,  and  Adam  Cltirke,  and  as  many 
more  as  he  chooses,  but  their  words  are  notliing  to 
the  purpose  ;  let  us  have  the  word  of  the  Lord  upon 
this  matter.  Let  all  minor  points  drop  out  of  the 
discussion;  I  am  ready  to  yield  my  position  and 
adopt  my  brother's  practice,  as  soon  as  this  point 
shall  be  settled  in  his  favor.  And  my  brethren  will 
go  with  me  ;  the  Avhole  church  of  Christ  in  Lime 
county — five  hundred  men  and  women — will  at  once 
adopt  the  Tuiiker's  practice  of  feet- washing,  if  my 
brother  will  produce  a  single  instance  in  the  Scrip- 
tures where  feet-washing  was  done,  or  commanded  to 
be  done,  in  the  public  assembly  of  the  Church  of 
Christ.     \_Time  expired. 


[MR  QUTXTERS  FOURTH  ADDRESS.] 

Friendly  Moderators — My  friend  commenced  his 
last  speech  with  an  endeavor  to  exhibit  an  inconsist- 
ency between  ray  ideas  of  the  purpose  of  feet-washing 
and  our  practice  in  this  respect.  Now,  as  it  happens, 
the  remarks  about  the  necessity  of  being  cleansed  from 
the  daily  contamination  of  the  world  were  incident- 


272  DEBATE  ON  FEET- WASHING. 

allj  dropped  by  Olshausen ;  that  was  his  language, 
not  my  own.  In  saying  that,  as  a  general  thing,  I  like 
his  ideas  and  his  manner  of  expressing  them,  I  did 
not  mean  to  be  understood  as  indorsing  every  remark 
he  might  incidcjitally  let  fall.  Now,  by  the  term 
"  daily,"  we  understand,  "  frequently."  Even  after 
our  baptism,  we  are  liable  often  to  become  defiled  by 
sin ;  hence  the  necessity  of  this  after-cleansing ; 
whether  once  a  week,  once  a  month,  or  once  a  year, 
does  not  matter,  so  it  be  done  "  frequently  *'  after- 
ward. 

My  friend  says  the  occasion  which  called  forth  the 
washing  of  the  disciples'  feet  by  our  Saviour,  can 
never  again  occur.  Either  I  do  not  understand  him, 
or  he  has  not  understood  me.  I  do  not  know  that  I 
can  explain  myself  any  more  clearl}^  than  I  have.  I 
understand  the  occasion  that  called  it  forth,  to  have 
been  the  strife  among  the  disciples — the  improper 
feelings  in  their  hearts,  their  selfish  ambitions,  their 
desire  to  rule  over  one  another.  That  cause,  more  or 
less,  continually  exists,  in  all  ages,  and  everywhere. 
I  had  better  call  this  the  cause,  perhaps,  instead  of 
the  occasion  ;  but  I  was  generally  understood  before, 
I  think.  And  because  that  cause  continues  to  exist, 
I  argue  the  necessit}^  for  the  continuance  of  the  act 
which  this  cause  then  called  forth.  If  any  lesson  was 
learned,  if  any  effect  resulted  from  the  act  as  per-, 
formed  by  Jesus,  then  the  same  lesson,  the  same  effect, 
would  foUow  the  observance  of  the  act  to-day. 

My  friend  made  an  appeal,  quite  touching  to  the 
feelings,  calling  upon  us  all  "  to  learn  this  solemn 
lesson  of  deep  humility,"  from  seeing  our  divine  Mas- 
ter '"clothed  in  the  habiliments  of  a  servant,  washing 
the  feet  of  his  disciples."  That  is  precisely  the  reason 
why  we  follow  his  example.  When  Ave  wash  the  feet 
of  our  brethren,  we  are  reminded  of  our  Saviour,  and 
impressed  with  the  necessity  of  cultivating  that  deep 


MR.  quinter's  fourth  address.  273 

humility  whicli  ho  possessed.  In  the  porformance  of 
this  act  we  have  tiie  image  of  Jesus,  when  lie  performed 
it,  foreihly  and  distinctly  imi)ressed  upon  our  minds. 

Several  other  points  to  which  my  friend  referred, 
^vill  come  up  and  be  attended  to  in  the  course  of  my 
regular  argument,  to  which  I  will  now  proceed. 

I  argue  the  perpetuity  of  feet-washing  from  its  ex- 
istence in  the  apostolic  church  after  the  Saviour  per- 
formed it. 

That  it  existed  in  the  apostolic  church,  I  think  my 
friend  will  not  deny.  The  Saviour  commanded  the 
disciples  to  wash  one  another's  feet,  and  my  friend 
has  acknowledged  that  he  intended  they  were  actually 
to  do  it — not  to  do  something  else  as  a  substitute  for 
it.  Now,  who  were  to  do  it — thi\t  original  twelve,  and 
no  more?  If  those  twelve,  and  no  more,  were  to  do 
it,  then,  when  they  were  traveling,  and  other  believ- 
ers were  in  their  company,  and  these  seasons  of  feet- 
washing  occurred,  who  were  now  to  wash?  Must  the 
original  twelve  alone,  or  that  part  of  the  twelve  who 
happened  to  be  present  in  the  company,  perform  this 
act,  and  receive  the  blessings  that  were  promised  as 
its  result  ?  There  was  Paul,  that  warm-hearted,  zeal- 
ous, devoted  servant  of  God ;  when  he  was  with  the 
twelve,  or  some  of  the  twelve,  and  preparations  were 
made  for  feet- washing,  was  Paul  to  unite  with  them 
in  the  act,  and  participate  in  its  benefits,  or  not?  So 
w^ith  ApoUos,  and  other  ministers  and  believers  who 
chanced  to  be  with  any  of  the  original  twelve  to  whom 
this  command  was  directl}^  given.  Were  they  to  stand 
around  and  look  on,  regretting  that,  while  this  was  a 
useful  and  beneficial  thing,  blessings  being  pronounced 
upon  those  who  should  perform  it,  yet  it  was  not  for 
them  to  participate  in?  At  length,  one  after  another 
of  the  original  apostles  would  die,  the  number  of  be- 
lievers meanwhile  vastly  increasing.  Where  was  this 
to  stop?  When  was  it  to  cease?  The  apostolic 
18 


274         DEBATE  ON  FEET- WASHING. 

cliiirch  was  an  organized  body  ;  some  died,  others 
came  in,  but  the  orn;anization  continued.  How  lonor 
and  by  whom  among  them  was  this  feet-washing  to  be 
observed  ?  Here,  I  say,  is  this  difficulty  tliat  comes 
up  in  my  mind — if  feet-washing  was  not  intended  to 
be  perpetual,  but  was  meant  to  be  confined  to  the 
original  twelve,  who,  my  friend  acknowledges,  were 
actually  to  do  it.  Perhaps  he  will  be  able  to  clear  up 
this  matter.  I  see  no  alternative  except  to  acknowl- 
edge that  not  only  the  orignal  twelve,  but  Paul  and 
Apollos,  and  all  the  brethren,  were  to  do  it,  and  to  con- 
tinue to  do,  and  to  reap  the  benefits  of  doing  it,  and 
the  thing  thus  go  on,  and  on,  and  on,  as  the  affirma- 
tive of  the  proposition  we  are  discussing  declares  it 
should  go  on,  till  our  Lord  comes  again.  So,  in 
Christ's  true  church,  in  some  branch  of  his  church,  it 
has  continued  down  to  the  present  time,  and  will  now 
never  be  lost,  never  be  discontinued,  till  our  Saviour's 
second  coming. 

I  will  now  refer  to  this  feet-washing  at  Ephesus,  or 
wherever  Timothy  was  when  Paul  addressed  to  him 
the  first  epistle  that  commonl}^  goes  by  his  name. 
This  my  friend  has  called  up  as  the  one  occasion  when 
feet-washing  was  observed  after  the  occasion  when 
our  Saviour  did  it.  His  objection  to  the  supposition 
that  feet-washing  was  referred  to  as  an  ordinance,  is 
.based  upon  the  fa.ct  that  it  is  here  (I  Timothy,  v  :  10) 
classed  with  good  works.  This  same  objection  I  re- 
collect seeing  in  Alexander  Campbell's  ''  Christian 
Baptist,"  years  and  years  ago.  Because  the  washing 
of  feet  is  connected  with  raising  children,  lodging 
strangers,  relieving  the  afflicted,  and  other  ''  good 
works,"  he  claims  that  it  can  not  be  a  religious  ordi- 
nance. I  call  your  attention  to  Ephesians,  ii :  10,  where 
it  is  said,  '"'For  we  are  his  workmansliip,  created  in 
Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works."  Here  the  whole 
Christian  life,  all  the  rich,  blessed  consequences  that 


I 


MR.    QUINTER's   fourth    ADDRESS.  275 

follow  the  now  creation,  are  said  to  be  ''unto  good 
woiks."  Evcrytliing  comprising  the  Christian  charac- 
ter is  brought  under  the  term  "  good  works."  Then, 
can  not  a  Christian  ordinance  be  included  under  the 
term  "  good  works,"  since  everything  is  included 
under  it?  I  will  quote  another  passage,  from  James 
(i :  27)  :  *'  Pure  religion  and  undefiled  before  God  and 
the  Father,  is  this,  to  visit  the  fatherless  and  widows 
in  their  affliction,  and  to  keep  himself  unspotted  from 
the  world."  Here  pure  religion  is  divided  into  two 
parts  :  the  negative  part  is,  to  keep  unspotted  from 
the  world ;  the  positive  part,  to  visit  the  fatherless 
and  widows  in  their  affliction.  Now,  though  not  men- 
tioned in  words,  yet  you  have  feet-washing  there : 
everything  that  is  in  the  Gospel  you  have  there,  under 
the  head  of '' pure  religion."  Now,  the  point  made 
by  Alexander  Campbell,  and  by  his  brethren  in  this 
day,  is,  that  feet-washing  can  not  be  an  ordinance, 
because  it  stands  in  an  improper  connection  ;  it  stands 
named  among  good  works,  not  among  ordinances, 
they  claim.  Now,  if  there  is  anything  in  this  argu- 
ment, I  say  that  baptism  can  not  be  an  ordinance;  the 
communion  can  not  be  an  ordinance  ;  because  they 
stand  connected  with  good  works — with  visiting  the 
fatherless  and  widows.  That  will  never  do  ;  if  feet- 
washing  is  to  be  rejected  from  among  the  ordinances, 
it  must  be  rejected  on  other  and  better  grounds  than 
that.  It  stands  in  good  fellowship ;  it  stands  in  con- 
nection Avith  the  most  important  and  practical  duties. 
But  we  are  not  done  with  this  matter  yet.  Speak- 
ing of  this  widow,  Paul  says,  "if  she  have  lodged 
strangers,  if  she  have  washed  the  saints'  feet,"  etc. 
Now,  I  will  ask  your  attention  to  Genesis,  xix  :  2 : 
"  And  he  (Lot)  said.  Behold  now,  my  lords,  turn  in,  I 
pray  you,  unto  your  servant's  house,  and  tarry  all 
night,  and  wash  your  feet,  and  ye  shall  rise  up  early, 
and  go  on  your  ways."     My  friend's  theory  has  been, 


276  DEBATE  ON  FEET- WASHING. 

that  this  feet- washing  has  alwa^^s  been  connected  with 
tlie  evening  meal,  being  performed  after  supper,  and 
just  before  retiring  to  rest  for  the  night.  Now,  I 
kindly  submit  to  the  gentlemen  Moderators,  and  to 
this  respectable  assembly,  in  view  of  what  my  friend 
has  said,  whether  the  washing  of  feet  does  not  belong 
to  the  lodging  of  strangers?  But  here  we  have  feet- 
washing  separate  from  the  lodging  of  strangers ;  the 
lodging  of  strangers  is  referred  to  as  one  thing,  and 
the  washing  of  feet  as  another  thing.  Furthermore, 
I  want  to  direct  your  attention  to  another  noticeable 
and  important  point :  *'  If  she  have  lodged  strangers, 
if  she  have  washed  the  feet  of  the  saints^  I  submit 
with  the  utmost  confidence  that  the  mind  that  looks 
at  this  candidly,  must  feel  that  the  feet-washing  here 
mentioned  is  something  that  refers  more  especially  to 
the  saints,  as  distinguished  from  strangers.  My  friend 
says  he  is  ready  to  wash  the  feet  of  any  one  who 
needs  it.  I  have  no  doubt  of  it — so  am  I;  any  stran- 
ger, poor,  miserable,  wretched,  sick,  infirm,  that  should 
come  along,  I  would  take  him  into  my  house,  so  long 
as  God  gives  me  one  to  shelter  me;  would  share  my 
bread  with  him,  so  long  as  I  had  a  crust  for  myself; 
I  would  wash  his  feet  to  administer  to  his  comfort. 
But  all  this,  according  to  the  ground  assumed  by  my 
friend  during  this  discussion,  would  come  under  the 
head  of  '•  lodging  strangers."  But  here  is  something 
else  demanded  of  this  widow  ;  she  must  not  only  have 
lodged  strangers,  but  she  must  have  washed  the  saints' 
feet.  Have  you  ever  looked  at  the  matter  from  this 
stand-point?  If  so,  I  doubt  not  your  convictions  are 
similar  to  mine.  If  not,  I  urge  you  to  look  at  this 
point  very  carefully.  My  friend  brought  up  this 
verse  against  feet-washing  ;  I  bring  it  up  as  a  strong 
argument  in  defense  of  feet-washing. 

Aojain  :   if  feet-washino;  were  reojarded  merely  as  an 
act  of  hospitality,  as  my  friend  would  have  you  be- 


MR.    QUINTER'S    fourth    ADDRESS.  277 

lieve,  there  would  have  been  no  distinction  made 
between  strangers  and  saints.  When  persons  are 
traveling  along,  and  night  ai-rives,  and  they  stop  at 
our  houses,  such  of  us  as  have  houses,  and  ask  to 
share  in  our  hospitality,  do  we  stop  to  ask  them,  "  are 
you  a  member  of  my  church  ?"  Some  of  us  are 
thought  to  be  contrated  and  illiberal,  I  know;  but  I 
hope  none  of  us  are  so  contracted  in  our  charity  as 
that.  But  here  the  apostle  points  out  a  special  char- 
acter to  whom  this  act  is  to  be  directed;  while  acts 
of  hospitality  were  to  be  extended  to  all  strangers, 
here  was  an  act  of  some  other  character,  of  which 
members  of  the  church  only  were  to  have  the  benefit. 
My  friend  raised  an  inquiry  as  to  the  reason  why 
Paul  raised  tltese  questions  in  regard  to  this  widow — 
whether  it  was  because  she  had  neglected  her  duty, 
or  why?  It  may  have  been  the  case.  There  was 
neglect  on  other  points,  calling  out  the  severe  censure 
of  the  apostles  ;  and  there  may  have  been  neglect 
also  in  reference  to  feet-washing.  There  may  have 
been  in  those  days,  as  in  these,  some  good  sister — no, 
not  very  good  sister;  it  will  not  do  to  say  that — but 
some  sister  who  deemed  that  there  was  somethinoj 
reproachful  or  humiliating  in  feet-washing  ;  and  then 
Paul  would  admonish,  saying,  ''you  must  not  stand 
back;"  if  you  wish  to  avail  yourselves  of  the  privi- 
leges of  the  church,  you  must  not  shrink  from  perform- 
ing the  duties  prescribed  by  its  Leader  and  Head;  be 
ready  even  to  wash  the  saints'  feet;  then,  if  you  want 
any  special  advantages  in  the  church,  your  case  will 
be  attended  to  ;  you  will  be  honored  in  the  church, 
and,  if  necessary,  fed  and  clothed  by  it,  if  you  have 
complied  with  the  requirements  prescribed.  ITime 
expired. 


278  DEBATE   ON   FEET-WASHING. 


[MR  McCONNELL'S   FOURTH  ADDRESS.] 

Friends  and  Moderators — I  confess  I  am  losing 
a  little  of  my  interest  in  this  discussion  ;  and  I  will 
tell  you  why.  As  I  have  repeatedly  said,  this  whole 
matter  can  be  settled  easily  and  quickly  by  adducing 
a  single  command  or  example  by  Christ,  or  his  apos- 
tles, for  washing  feet  in  the  public  assembly  of  the 
church.  I  think  I  am  not  unreasonable  in  my  de- 
mands ;  I  think  the  conditions  are  no  more  than  he 
■would  demand,  and  would  have  a  right  to  demand,  of 
me  under  similar  circumstances ;  I  think  he  can  have 
no  cause  for  complaint  if  he  can  not  compel  us  to  do 
what  neither  Christ  nor  any  of  his  apostles  ever  did, 
or  ever  commanded  to  be  done.  I  know  my  friend 
has  a  right  to  conduct  his  share  of  this  discussion  as 
he  pleases  ;  I  know  I  have  no  right  to  complain  if  he 
chooses  to  deliver  lecture  after  lecture,  for  hour  after 
hour,  upon  subjects  having  no  bearing  upon  the  points 
at  issue  between  us  ;  but  wherever  he  may  wander  in 
the  course  of  his  remarks,  do  not  let  your  attention 
be  diverted  from  the  real  point,  the  only  point  at 
issue.  I  do  not  complain  of  him  for  wandering  from 
the  point,  and  talking  about  anything  and  everything 
else,  no  matter  how  irrelevant,  for  I  know  that  is  all 
there  is  left  for  him  to  do  ;  if  there  had  been  anything 
else,  he  would  hiive  done  it  long  ago. 

But  there  is  one  thing  of  which  I  do  complain,  in 
the  course  taken  by  my  brother  ;  and  that  is, 
his  repeated  and  constant  misrepresentation  of  my 
position  upon  this  question.  He  is  continually  rep- 
resenting me  as  saying  this,  and  that,  and  the 
other  thino^,  ayjainst  fect-washin*]^.  Now,  I  call  this 
entire  congregation  to  witness  that  I  have  not  this  day 
said  a  solitary  word  against  saints  washing  each 
other's  feet;  on  the  contrary,  I  have  argued  in  its 
favor  with  all  the  earnestness  of  my  nature,  if  not 


MR.    m'cOXNKLL's    FOl'llTII    ADDRESS.  279 

with  all  the  ability  of  my  friend.  I  speak  of  tliis  be- 
cause such  remarks  upon  his  part  arc  calculated  to 
place  me  in  a  false  position,  a  position  in  which  I  can 
not  consent  to  remain,  before  these  gentlemen  mod- 
erators and  this  congregation.  If  he  had  said  that  I 
adduced  certain  passages  of  Scripture,  certain  argu- 
ments based  upon  such  passages,  against  the  washing 
of  feet  in  the  public  assembly  of  Christ's  church,  he 
would  have  represented  me  correctly. 

Airain  :  my  friend  refers  to  somethin;^:  as  beinoj 
*'  one  of  Alexander  Campbell's  objections"  to  feet- 
washing.  I  will  say,  in  behalf  of  Brother  Campbell, 
whose  memory  is  dear  to  me,  that  I  have  read  his 
writings  pretty  closely,  but  I  have  never  been  able  to 
find  a  single  objection  raised  by  him  against  feet- 
washing.  Perhaps  my  friend  has.  But  I  know  that 
Alexander  Campbell  did  raise  objections  to  making  a 
church  ordinance  of  feet- washing.  It  is  as  gross  a 
misrepresentation  as  any  man  can  be  guilty  of,  to 
assert  that  we  oppose  feet- washing,  when  we  only 
oppose  it  under  certain  circumstances.  If  Dr.  A.  had 
opposed  the  taking  of  blood  from  a  man's  veins  who 
had  met  with  some  accident  whereby  he  had  nearly 
bled  to  death,  it  would  be  a  gross  misrepresentation  to 
assert  in  general  terms  that  Dr.  A.  was  opposed  to  blood- 
letting. But  all  this  arises  from  the  necessity  of  the 
case — the  necessity,  on  the  part  of  my  friend,  of  occu- 
pying the  attention  of  this  audience  Avith  points  not  at 
issue,  to  escape  the  one  that  is.  1  have  reduced  the 
discussion  on  the  whole  proposition  to  a  single  issue, 
by  yielding  every  point  but  one.  I  have  acknowledged 
it  to  be  a  Christian  duty  to  wash  the  feet  of  the  saints  ; 
whether  performed  by  widows,  or  any  other  member  of 
the  church,  I  care  not ;  the  onl}^  question  remaining  be- 
tween us  is — and  I  now^  respectfully  urge  my  brother  to 
confine  his  remarks  hereafter  to  this  one  point — is  this 
washing  of  the  feet  to  be  performed  in  the  public 


280  DEBATE   ON   FEET-WASHING. 

a^semhly  of  the  church  ?  If  there  seems  to  be  some 
repetition  in  my  remarks  upon  this  point,  the  reason 
I  repeat  it  so  frequently  is  because  my  brother  ren- 
ders it  necessary  for  me  to  do  so,  by  constantly  en- 
deavoring to  lead  your  minds  away  from  this  point, 
to  the  consideration  of  some  other  point  that  is  not  in 
dispute  at  all. 

My  friend  endeavors  to  make  a  point  in  favor  of 
feet-washing  by  comparing  the  feet-washing  men- 
tioned in  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  Genesis  with  that 
mentioned  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  Timothy — showing 
that  in  the  former  case  feet-washing  was  connected 
with  lodging  strangers^  while  in  the  latter  it  was  the 
saints'  feet  that  were  to  be  washed.  He  inquires  why 
this  difference,  unless  in  the  latter  case  the  feet-wash- 
ing be  a  religious  ordinance  ?  Now,  there  are  cus- 
toms that  prevail  in  some  places,  and  among  some 
tribes  of  people,  that  do  not  prevail  in  other  places, 
and  among  other  tribes  of  people ;  but  hospitality,  the 
necessity  for  lodging  strangers,  exists  in  all  places, 
and  among  all  races.  If  a  stranger  comes  to  mj 
house  and  asks  for  lodging,  I  know  that  he  will  need 
a  bed  to  sleep  in ;  but  if  I  should  offer  to  wash  his 
feet,  he  might  positively  object;  that  is  a  custom  of 
more  limited  prevalence.  But  as  the  washing  of  feet  was 
a  custom  that  obtained  in  Ephesus,  and  the  portions 
of  the  world  where  the  church  was  situated  over  which 
Timothy  had  the  oversight,  if  she  neglected  to  wash 
the  feet  of  lier  fellow  members  of  the  church,  it  would 
be  the  result  of  her  own  lack  of  disposition  to  do  it. 

Mj  friend  constantly  contends  that  feet-washing  is 
an  act  of  religious  worship.  Now,  an  act  of  religious 
worship  was  to  be  performed  in  the  public  assembly 
as  often  as  the  saints  assembled  themselves  together; 
they  assembled  themselves  together  every  week ; 
therefore,  feet-washing  must  be  performed  every  week. 
That  conclusion  is  unavoidable,  provided   the  major 


MR.  m'connell's  fourth  addhess.  281 

premise  is  true — that  feet-wnshing  is  an  act  of  public 
worsliip.  Whenever  my  friend  convinces  me  that 
feet-washing  is  an  act  of  religious  worship,  T  will 
attend  to  it  as  such  ;  but  not  in  the  waj  he  practices 
it;  for  if  it  be  an  act  of  religious  worship,  it  ought  to 
be  attended  to  every  week,  or  at  least  whenever  the 
followers  of  Christ  assemble  for  worship. 

My  friend,  in  one  of  his  speeches  this  forenoon, 
drew  an  argument  from  the  language  of  the  commis- 
sion, where  Christ  sent  forth  his  disciples  to  teach  all 
nations  whatsoever  he  had  commanded  them  ;  whence 
he  argues  that,  in  the  fulfillment  of  that  command, 
they  could  have  kept  back  nothing  that  was  profit- 
able to  us.  Now,  let  me  add  another  member  to  that 
syllogism  :  The  apostles  never  taught  that  feet- wash- 
ing was  an  ordinance  to  be  performed  in  the  public 
assembly  of  the  church  ;  therefore,  public  feet-washing 
as  a  religious  ordinance  is  not  profitable.  There  is 
but  one  way  to  attack  that  syllogism,  and  that  is  by 
attacking  the  second  member  of  it ;  and  there  is  but 
one  way  to  do  that,  and  that  is  by  showing  that  the 
apostles  did  teach  to  wash  feet  in  the  public  assembly 
of  the  church.  One  sino^le  command,  one  sinorle  ex- 
ample,  from  them,  will  settle  the  case  at  once.  I  do 
not  attack  my  friend's  argument  from  the  commission  ; 
on  the  contrary,  I  accept  it  as  correct.  And,  indeed, 
you  will  find  Paul  himself  declaring  to  the  elders  of 
the  church  at  Ephesus  (Acts,  xx  :  20):  "I  kept  back 
nothing  that  was  profitable  ;"  but  Paul  never  taught 
the  washing  of  feet  in  the  public  assembly  of  Christ's 
church  ;  therefore  the  public  washing  of  feet  is  not 
profitable. 

But  my  friend  may  call  his  brethren  up  to  the  wit- 
ness stand  and  appeal  to  them  :  "  Brethren,  have  you 
not  all  felt  it  to  be  profitable  to  wash  feet  in  public  ?" 
and  from  all  over  the  house  will  arise  the  response, 
.^'  Yes,  yes,  yes."     But  evidence  of  this  sort — evidence 


282         DEBATE  ON  FEET- WASHING. 

furnished  by  the  feelings — is  very  unreliable.  The 
minister  who  believes  in  infant  baptism  will  ask  his 
pedobaptist  brethren,  "Have  you  not  all  felt  the  bap- 
tism of  infants  to  be  profitable  ?  have  you  not  felt  a 
joy  in  your  souls  after  returning  from  the  place  where 
your  infant  child  had  been  sprinkled  ?"  And  every- 
where the  answer  would  arise,  "  Yes,  yes."  The 
Hindoo  mother  who  casts  her  babe  into  the  waters  to 
be  devoured  by  the  crocodiles,  or  the  heathen  who 
casts  himself  beneath  the  wheels  of  Juggernaut  to 
be  crushed  to  death,  do  so  because  they  feel  that  it  is 
profitable  to  their  souls.  Persuade  any  person  that  a 
thing  is  right,  and  he  v^'iW  feel  that  it  is  profitable  to 
his  soul,  whether  it  be  really  right  or  wrong. 

Another  point:  my  friend  had  a  long  argument,  or 
somethino;  that  miorht  look  like  one  to  a  careless  ob- 
server — 1  didn't  pay  much  attention  to  it,  for  I  saw 
at  the  start  that  there  was  nothing  in  it — asking 
"whether  only  the  original  twelve  apostles  were  to  par- 
ticipate in  this  feet-washing  and  partake  of  its  benefits, 
■while  the  other  believers  stood  around,  looking  on,  and 
feeling  bad  because  they  had  no  cliance  in  it?  That 
w'as  in  his  argument  for  the  perpetiiity  of  feet- washing. 
I  have  said,  time  and  again,  if  my  brother  will  estab- 
lish the  main  issue,  find  the  command  or  the  example 
of  Christ,  or  of  any  of  his  apostles,  for  washing  feet 
in  the  public  assemhly  of  the  churchy  I  will  admit  all 
the  i*est,  including  the  perpetuity. 

My  friend  submitted  some  thoughts  in  reference  to 
the  association  of  feet-washing  with  good  works.  He 
directed  your  attention  to  the  remark  of  James,  that 
pure  religion  and  undefiled,  is  to  visit  the  fatherless 
and  widows  in  their  afiliction,  and  to  keep  unspotted 
from  the  world.  I  do  not  see  that  James  helps  him 
out  of  his  difficulty.  Does  feet- washing  come  under 
the  head-of  visiting  the  widows  and  the  fatherless  ?  Is 
visiting  the  widows  and  the  fatherless  to  be  done  in 


MR.  m'CONNELL's   fourth    ADDRESS.  283 

the  pnhlic  asseniblv  of  the  cluirch,  or  at  their  homes? 
If  lie  iiieMHs  that  he  would  associate  feet-washing  with 
such  good  works  as  visiting  the  fatherless  and  widows 
in  their  affliction,  then  he  means  just  what /mean. 
But  I  furthermore  maintain  that  feet-washing  should 
be  done  where  these  other  things  mentioned  should  be 
done. 

My  friend  savs  that  the  word  "daily"  does  not 
mean  "  daily,"  but  only  "  frequently  ;"  that  it  is  a 
word  of  indefinite  meaning.  Well,  when  it  is  said  of 
the  disciples  at  Jerusalem  (Acts,  ii :  46),  that  they 
*'  continued  daily  with  one  accord  in  the  temple,"  does 
it  mean  that  they  went  in  once  a  year  f  My  Tonker 
brethren  argue  the  necessity  of  daily  feet  washing, 
and  then  do  it  once  a  year.  I  thouglit  (iaily  meant 
once  a  day.  But  I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as 
arguing  against  feet-washing,  whether  daily  or  yearly; 
all  my  arguments  are  directed  against  its  performance 
in  the  public  assembly  of  the  church,  as  an  ordinance  of 
divine  worship. 

I  had  supposed  that  before  the  close  of  the  after- 
noon my  brother  would  have  elaborated  more  fully  his 
argument  from  the  commission,  and  have  hitherto 
avoided  any  extensive  reference  to  it  for  that  reason. 
I  simply  suggested,  in  a  former  speech,  that  his  syl- 
logism was  at  fault,  because  it  did  not  contain  the 
pul)lic  assembly  of  Christ's  church.  The  point  my 
brother  made,  if  my  memory  serves  me  right,  was 
that  Jesus  told  his  disciples  to  teach  all  nations  to 
observe  whatsoever  he  had  commanded  his  disciples 
to  observe.  Kight  there  I  join  issue.  The  text 
reads,  "  teaching  them  to  observe  all  thing  whatso- 
ever I  have  commanded  you."  But  the  sentence  as 
it  stands  is  incomplete  :  it  is  absolutely  necess.-iry  that 
something  be  added  to  complete  the  sense.  Brother 
Quintcr  would  supply  so  as  to  have  the  sentence  read, 
*'  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have 


284  DEBATE    ON   FEET-WASHING. 

commanded  you  to  observe.''^  I  will  give  you  the  form 
tliat  I  deem  more  correct:  "Teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  hnve  commanded  you  to  teach^ 
It  is  certain  that  Mr.  Quinter's  form  of  the  sentence 
can  not  be  correct,  for  "all  nations"  were  not  com- 
manded to  observe  all  that  the  apostles  were ;  there 
were  many  commands  given  for  the  apostles  to  ob- 
serve which  no  other  Christians  were  to  observe.  For 
instance:  Christ  commanded  his  apostles  to  tarry  in 
the  City  of  Jerusalem  until  they  should  be  endued 
with  power  from  on  high.  Now,  this  command  does 
not  apply  to  us.  If  so,  we  should  immediately  start 
for  Jerusalem,  never  preach  till  w^e  reached  there,  and 
there  remain  till  the  Hol}^  Spirit,  manifested  by  cloven 
tongues  like  as  of  fire,  rested  upon  our  heads. 
Many  other  things  he  commanded  the  apostles  to  ob- 
serve, which  they  were  never  to  te'ach  others  to  ob- 
serve. It  will  not  do  to  supply  the  omitted  words  in 
the  commission  so  as  to  give  it  this  meaning.  I  do 
not  say  this  for  the  purpose  of  limiting  feet- washing 
to  the  apostles,  but  to  show  that  my  brother's  inter- 
pretation of  the  commission  can  not  be  correct.  But 
upon  either  interpretation — whether  they  were  to 
teach  all  nations  whatsoever  he  had  commanded  them 
to  observe,  or  to  teach — it  does  not  in  any  way  help  my 
brother  out  of  his  difficulties;  for  Christ  never  com- 
manded his  apostles  either  to  observe  or  to  teach  the 
practice  of  feet-washing  in  the  public  assembly  of  the 
church.  Christ  did  set  an  exani{)le  of  feet-wasliing, 
and  said  to  his  disciples,  "Ye  ought  also  to  wash  one 
another's  feet."  But  that  was  in  a  private  house,  after 
the  evening  meal,  before  retiring  to  rest,  in  exact 
accordance  with  the  custom  prevailing  in  the  East  in 
those  days.  The  apostles  did  teach  baptized  believers 
to  follow  this  example  and  precept,  to  wash  one  an- 
other's feet,  in  like  ))ian}ier  r/.v  he  Itad  done  it,  not  as 
an  ordinance  of  public  worship,  but  as  a  private  and 


MR.    m'cONNELL's    fourth    ADDRESS.  285 

personal  duty — as  we  gather  from  the  case  of  the 
wi(I(»\v  coiiiuk'ihUmI  to  the  earc  of  the  cliurcli  in  1  Tiin- 
otliy,  fifth  chapter  and  tenth  verse,  where  feet-wasliing 
is  chissed  among  private  and  personal  duties. 

''  Ye  also  ougJtt  to  wash  one  another's  feet."  A 
word  of  criticism  upon  the  word  translated  "  ought" 
in  this  verse.  It  will  be  seen  that  it  is  the  onl}^  word 
in  this  connection  that  indicates  command.  Green- 
field says  :  "  Spoken  of  what  the  circumstances  of 
time,  of  person,  etc.,  render  necessary."  Let  us  con- 
si(ier  '*  the  circumstances  of  time,  person,"  etc.  The 
time  was  at  night,  when  it  was  time  to  retire  ;  the 
persons  were  Christ  and  a  company  of  his  disciples, 
with  sand:ds  on  their  feet,  having  traveled  over  a  dusty 
road,  rendering  feet- washing  necessary  for  purposes 
of  cleanliness  and  comfort.  Now,  whenever  I  find 
similar  "  circumstances  of  time,  person,"  etc.,  I  pro- 
pose to  wash  feet.  But  under  Avhat  circumstances  do 
our  Tonker  brethren  wash  feet  ?  All  the  brethren  for 
many  miles  around  are  called  together;  the  whole  is 
made  a  grand  festival  occasion  ;  every  brother  washes 
his  feet  at  home,  and  then  goes  to  the  place  appointed 
for  meeting  in  order  to  have  his  feet  washed  when  it 
is  710,1  necessary.  Can  anything  be  more  completely 
in  contrast  with  the  circumstances  under  which  Glirist 
washed  his  disciples  feet?  I  maintain,  then,  that  my 
Tonker  brethren  have  no  right  to  any  argument  based 
upon  the  word  "  ought"  in  this  connection. 

My  Tonker  brethren  may  say,  "  But  you  do  n't  wash 
each  other's  feet  at  all."  Well,  I  fear  many  of  us 
will  have  to  confess  our  neglect  and  sin  in  this  respect. 
But  will  the  simple  fact  that  I  neglect  to  live  up  to 
that  which  is  my  privilege  or  duty  in  the  family  circle, 
transfer  that  duty  from  the  family  circle  to  the  church, 
and  establish  another  and  opposite  practice — that  of 
washing  one  another's  feet  in  the  public  a88emhly  of 
the  saints '(     \_Time  expired. 


286  DEBATE   ON   FEET- WASHING. 


[MR.  QUINTER'S  FIFTH  ADDRESS.] 

Gentlemen  Moderators — I  am  Kappy  to  meet 
you  again  this  morning,  to  continue  our  discussion 
of  the  proposition  before  us.  But,  first,  I  wish  to 
refer  to  a  comphiint  that  my  friend  made  in  his  hist 
speech  yesterday — that  I  had  not  kept  to  my  subject. 
I  thought  that  I  had  done  so.  I  had  supposed  that 
my  speeches  yesterday  were  very  closely  connected 
with  the  subject.  The  proposition  that  we  are  dis- 
cussing was  drawn  up  by  my  friend,  in  form  to  suit 
himself;  and  there  seemed  to  be  a  necessity  for  look- 
ing at  it  under  the  three  aspects  that  I  considered  in 
my  divisions ;  and  it  seemed  very  necessary  that  I 
should  attend  to  the  first  two  divisions  before  pro- 
ceeding to  the  last.  That  was  the  order  of  proceed- 
ing that  my  judgment  dictated,  as  being  most  appro- 
priate. 

In  the  next  place,  I  notice — and  should  have 
noticed  before,  but  as  it  was  not  down  upon  my 
notes  it  slipped  my  memory — my  friend's  attempt  to 
dispose  of  the  feet-washing  practiced  by  the  Jewish 
high  priests.  In  reply  to  a  question  of  mine,  he 
replied  by  asserting  that  the  washings  of  the  hands 
and  feet,  and  all  the  washings  performed  upon  them- 
selves by  the  priests,  were  typical  of  Christian  bap- 
tism. That  the  washing  of  the  priest  when  first  in- 
ducted into  ofiice,  was  typical  of  Christian  baptism, 
I  will  not  deny  ;  indeed,  I  rather  entertain  the  idea^ 
that  it  was.  But  that  the  washing  of  their  hands  and 
feet,  after  that,  was  a  type  of  baptism,  I  can  not 
accept.  Turn  to  Exodus,  xl :  12,  13,  and  read: 
''  Tliou  shalt  bring  Aaron  and  his  sons  unto  the  door 
of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  and  wash  them 


with  water;  and  thou  shalt  put  upon  Aaron  the  holy 
garments,  and  anoint  him,  and  sanctify  him,  that  he 


MR.    QUINTER'S    fifth    ADDRESS.  287 

may  minister  unto  me  in  the  priest's  office."  A  similar 
conimauil  w;is  j^ivcn  to  anoint  and  sanctify  Aaron's 
sons,  that  tliey  also  might  minister  in  the  priest's  office. 
And  in  the  sixteenth  verse  we  are  told,  "  Thus  did 
Moses  ;  according  to  all  that  the  Lord  commanded  him, 
so  did  he."  But  besides  this  initiatory  washing  there 
was  another  washing  performed,  as  often  as  the  priests 
approached  the  altar;  read  verses  thirty,  thirty-one, 
and  thirty-two  of  the  same  chapter  :  "  And  he  set  the 
laver"  \i.  e.^  the  brazen  laver  that  we  have  heard  so 
much  about  here]  "  l)et\veen  the  tent  of  the  congre- 
gation and  the  altar,  and  put  water  there  to  wash 
■withal ;  and  Moses,  and  Aaron,  and  his  sons,  washed 
their  hands  and  their  feet  thereat;  when  they  went 
into  the  tent  of  the  congregation,  and  when  they 
came  near  unto  the  altar,  they  washed;  as  the  Lord 
commanded  Moses."  Now,  if  at  their  first  induction 
into  office,  the  washing  of  the  body  was  a  type  of 
baptism  (which  I  presume  my  friend  will  not  deny), 
and  afterward  the  washing  of  their  hands  and  feet 
was  a  type  of  baptism  (as  my  friend  here  insists),  we 
have  a  representation  of  several  baptisms;  if  the 
washing  of  the  hands  and  feet  be  considered  as  one 
washing,  we  have  two  baptisms  ;  if  we  account  the 
washing  of  the  hands  to  be  a  separate  thing  from  the 
washing  of  the  feet,  we  have  three  baptisms — accord- 
ing to  the  typical  representation  of  my  friend  in 
regard  to  this  matter.  But  again:  if  the  washing  of 
the  hands  and  feet  were  a  type  of  Christian  baptism, 
what  do  we  do  ?  We  leave  the  grounds  that  we  have 
so  vigorously  contended  for  as  immersionists,  and 
concede  the  ground  to  the  pedobaptist  world.  I  am 
surprised  that  my  friend  should  involve  himself  in 
this  difficulty,  taking  a  position  fatal  to  our  Christian 
doctrine  of  immersion.  My  friend  has  been  a  strict 
constructionist  of  types  during  this  discussion ;  he 
would  have  us  adhere  closely  to  the  thought  that  the 


288  DEBATE   ON   FEET-WASHINa. 

type  is  a  complete  representation  of  the  anti-type. 
But  is  the  washing  of  the  hands  and  feet  a  strict 
type  of  immersion  of  the  wliole  body  ?  The  type  is 
entirely  too  small  to  be  the  anti-type  of  Christian  bap- 
tism, if  baptism  be  immersion  of  the  entire  body. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  the  third  division  of  my 
subject:  That  feet-washing,  as  an  ordinance,  ought 
to  be  performed  in  the  public  assembly  of  the  church. 

My  first  argument  will  be  grounded  upon  the  con- 
sideration that  feet-washing  was  instituted  by  Christ 
in  connection  with  the  communion.  It  was  institu- 
ted at  the  same  place,  at  the  same  time,  and  at  the 
same  supper,  at  which  the  communion  was  instituted. 
In  proof  of  this,  I  present  to  your  notice  the  fact  that 
at  the  supper  in  Jerusalem  at  which  the  communion 
was  instituted,  several  circumstances  took  place  which 
are  also  connected  Avith  the  supper  at  which  feet- 
washing  was  performed  by  our  Saviour.  The  first 
circumstance  to  which  I  will  refer,  is  that  mentioned 
in  Matthew,  xxvi  :  21,  seg.  "  And  as  they  did  eat, 
he  said,  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  that  one  of  you 
shall  betra}^  me.  And  they  were  exceeding  sorrow- 
ful, and  began  every  one  of  them  to  say  unto  him, 
Lord,  is  it  I?  And  he  answered  and  said.  He  that 
dippeth  his  hand  with  me  in  the  dish,  the  same  shall 
betray  me.  The  Son  of  man  goeth,  as  it  is  w^ritten  of 
him  :  but  woe  unto  that  man  by  whom  the  Son  of 
man  is  betrayed !  it  had  been  good  for  that  man  if  he 
had  not  been  born !  Then  Judas,  which  betrayed 
him,  .answered  and  said.  Master,  is  it  I?  He  said 
unto  him.  Thou  hast  said."  Immediately  after  which, 
followed  the  institution  of  the  communion. 

Now,  read  Mark,  xiv  :  18-21  :  ''  And  as  they  sat 
and  did  eat,  Jesus  said,  Verily  I  say  unto  you.  One 
of  you  which  eateth  with  me  sliall  betray  me.  And 
they  began  to  be  sorrowful,  and  to  say  unto  him  one 
by  one,  Is  it  I?     And  another  said,  Is  it  I?     And  he 


MR.  quinter's  fifth  address.  289 

answered  and  said  unto  them,  It  is  one  of  tlie  twolvo 
tliat  dippoth  with  me  in  the  dish.  The  Son  of  man 
indeed  goeth,  as  it  is  written  of  him,  but  ^Yoe  to  that 
man  by  whom  the  Son  of  man  is  betrayed !  good 
Avere  it  for  tliat  man  if  he  had  never  been  born!" 
Immediately  after  whicli,  followed  the  institution  of 
the  communion. 

In  the  twenty-second  chapter  of  Luke,  we  find  the 
story  of  the  same  supper  at  Jerusalem,  the  remarks 
of  Jesus  concerning  his  betrayer,  and  the  institution 
of  the  communion. 

In  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  John,  we  find  the  story 
of  the  supper  at  which  our  Saviour  washed  the  feet 
of  his  disciples.  This  my  friend  assumes  to  have 
been  a  different  supper  from  that  at  which  the  com- 
munion was  instituted,  claiming  that  it  took  place  at 
Bethany,  some  days  preceding  the  Passover;  but  I 
hold  it  to  have  been  the  same  supper  at  which  the  com- 
munion was  instituted,  from  the  fact  that  the  same  cir- 
cumstances, the  same  conversation,  occurred  here,  as 
is  related  by  the  evangelists  as  having  taken  place  at 
the  supper  before  referred  to;  read  from  the  twenty-first 
to  the  twenty-sixth  verses  of  this  thirteenth  chapter: 

"  When  Jesus  had  thus  said,  he  was  troubled  in 
spirit,  and  testified,  and  said,  Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you.  That  one  of  3^ou  shall  betray  me.  Then  the 
disciples  looked  one  on  another,  doubting  of  whom  he 
spake.  Now  there  was  leaning  on  Jesus'  bosom  one 
of  his  disciples,  whom  Jesus  loved.  Simon  Peter 
therefore  beckoned  to  him,  that  he  should  ask  who  it 
should  be  of  whom  *he  spake.  He,  then,  lying  on 
Jesus'"  breast,  saitli  unto  him,  Lord,  who  is  it?  Jesus 
answered,  He  it  is  to  whom  I  shall  give  a  sop  when  I 
have  dipped  it.  And  when  he  had  dipped  the  sop,  he 
gave  it  to  Judas  Iscariot,  the  son  of  Simon." 

Now,  you  will  notice,  by  a  careful  observation  of 
the  passages  of  Scripture  that  I  have  just  read,  that 
19 


290  DEBATE    ON    FEET-WASHING. 

Judas  WMS  miicle  known  as  the  betrayer  of  Jesus, 
according  to  the  first  three  evangelists,  at  the  supper 
which  was  eaten  at  Jerusalem,  at  which  the  commun- 
ion was  instituted ;  while,  according  to  John,  Judas 
was  made  known  at  the  supper  at  which  the  Saviour 
washed  the  feet  of  his  disciples.  This  fact  clearly  ident- 
ifies the  two  suppers  as  being  one  and  the  same 
supper.  Supposing  we  take  the  ground  of  my  worthy 
friend,  that  the  supper  at  which  the  feet-washing  was 
performed,  took  place  at  Bethany,  some  days  before 
the  supper  at  Jerusalem,  at  which  the  communion 
was  instituted;  then,  if  Judas  had  been  made  known 
at  the  supper  at  Bethany,  what  necessity  was  there 
for  his  being  made  known  again  at  the  supper  at 
Jerusalem  ?  The  nature  of  the  circumstances  was 
such  that  they  could  not  possibly  be  forgotten  in  the 
course  of  those  few  days. 

We  proceed  to  another  circumstance  that  serves  to 
identify  these  as  being  the  same  supper. 

Matthew,  after  narrating  the  institution  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  goes  on  to  say  that  Peter  remarked, 
(chap,  xxvi :  33,  34,  35),  "Though  all  men  shall  be 
oifended  because  of  thee,  yet  will  I  never  be  oifended. 
Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Verily  I  say  unto  thee,  that  this 
night,  before  the  cock  crow,  thou  shalt  deny  me 
thrice.  Peter  said  unto  hitn.  Though  I  should  die 
with  thee,  yet  will  I  not  deny  thee.  Mark  (xiv  29) 
relates  the  same  conversation  as  having  occurred  on 
the  night  of  the  institution  of  the  comumnion.  Luke, 
twenty-second  chapter,  records  t^he  institution  of  the 
communion,  and  this  prophesy  of  Peter's  denial  of 
Christ,  as  having  occurred  in  connection  with  each 
other.  Now,  let  us  refer  to  the  thirteenth  chapter  of 
John's  gospel,  where  we  will  find  the  story  of  the  sup- 
per at  which  the  Saviour  washed  the  di^^ciples'  feet, 
and  the  conversation  during  and  after  that  supper  ;  and 
here   we    find    (verse    37)    Peter    declaring    that    he 


MR.    QUINTER'S    fifth   ADDRESS.  291 

wouM  lay  down  hi.s  life  for  his  M.ister's  sake ;  to 
■which  (verse  88)  "Jesus  answered  him,  Wilt  thou  lay 
down  th}^  life  for  my  sake?  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
thee.  The  cock  shall  not  crow  till  thou  hast  denied  me 
thrice. "  So  we  find  that  the  same  incident,  the  very 
same  language  of  Peter,  and  reply  of  our  Saviour,  is 
given  by  the  three  first  evangelists  as  occurring  at 
the  supper  at  which  the  communion  was  instituted, 
and  by  John,  as  occurring  at  the  supper  at  which 
Jesus  washed  his  disciples'  feet.  This  identifies  the 
various  records  as  referring  to  the  same  supper,  and 
proves  that  the  feet-washing  occurred  at  the  same 
time  that  the  communion  was  instituted. 

But  according  to  my  friend's  theory,  that  the  sup- 
per at  which  Jesus  washed  his  disciples'  feet,  took 
place  at  Bethany,  at  the  house  of  Simon,  some  days 
before  the  supper  at  Jerusalem,  the  same  conversa- 
tion between  Christ  and  Peter  must  have  occurred 
twice,  and  there  must  in  fact  have  been  two  denials 
of  his  Master  by  the  unfaithful  Peter;  as  well  as  two 
occasions  when  the  Saviour  pointed  out  Judas  as 
being  the  one  who  was  to  betray  him. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  show  that  the  feet-washing 
performed  by  our  Saviour  was  not  done  after  supper, 
as  my  friend  assumes,  but  before  supper. 

By  referring  to  John,  xiii:  21-26,  it  will  be  seen 
that  it  was  after  the  feet  were  washed,  and  Jesus  had 
resumed  his  garments,  and  sat  down  again  at  the 
table,  that  Jesus  gave  the  sop  to  Judas.  On  telling 
them  that  one  among  them  should  betray  him,  Simon 
Peter  beckoned  to  John,  who  was  lying  on  our 
Saviour's  bosom,  being  the  one  whom  Jesus  loved, 
that  he  should  ask  who  among  the  twelve  was  to  be 
his  betrayer.  It  is  evident  they  were  now  at  supper; 
and  a  careful  examination  will  show  that  the  feet- 
washing  had  taken  place  before  all  this. 

But  in  opposition  to  this,  my  friend  will  refer  you 


292  DEBATE  ON  FEET-WASHING. 

to  the  second  verse  of  this  same  chapter,  which  says, 
"  And  supper  heirig  ended,^'  etc.,  Jesus  (verse  A)  riseth 
from  supper  and  hiid  aside  his  garments,  and  took  a 
towl,  and  girded  himself,"  and  proceeded  to  wash  his 
disciples'  feet.  The  Greek  word  here  used,  in  our 
common  version  translated  "  being  ended,"  is  geiiom- 
enou,  a  word  of  not  very  definite  meaning.  But,  what- 
ever it  means,  it  does  not  mean  '''  being  ended."  Tlie 
translation  of  the  American  Bible  Union  has  it,  "And 
supper  being  served.''  "And  while  supper  tvas  pre- 
paring ^'^  is  the  language  as  translated  by  Wilson, 
whose  version  we  have  among  us.  In  Matthew, 
xxvii :  1,  the  same  word  is  used  in  Greek,  and  is  in 
our  common  version  translated,  "  when  the  morning 
was  oome^'  not  "ended."  Doddridge  gives  the  pref- 
erence to  a  rendering  which  shall  indicate  that  the 
feet- washing  occurred  before  supper,  from  the  con- 
sideration that  such  was  the  custom  of  that  day  ;  it 
was  indeed  hardly  natural  that  they  should  sit  down 
and  eat,  and  then  get  up  and  wash  feet.  The  impro- 
priety of  our  common  translation  will  be  seen  from 
that  fact,  that  it  makes  the  supper  ended,  when  Jesus 
arose  and  washed  his  disciples'  feet,  after  which  they 
all  went  back,  sat  down  again  at  the  supper-table  and 
finished  their  supper ;  meanwhile  holding  the  conver- 
sations that  are  narrated  in  leference  to  Peter  and 
Judas.  The  inconsistency  of  this  ground  is  most 
palpably  evident. 

There  is  another  point  that  may  require  a  little  eluci- 
dation. "Why  is  this  supper,  in  the  thirteenth  chapter 
of  John,  where  the  feet-washing  is  recorded,  intro- 
duced by  the  remark,  "  Now,  before  the  feast  of  the 
Passover,"  if  this  was  the  Paschal  sup[)er  at  which  the 
Saviour  instituted  the  communion  ?  Indeed,  after 
Jesus  had  given  the  sop  to  Judas,  and  Satan  had 
entered  into  him,  when  Jesus  said,  "  That  thou  doest, 
do  quickly,"  the  other  disciples  thought  the  Judas, 


MR.  quinter's  fifth  address.  293 

who  was  tlieir  treasurer,  had  rronc  (verse  29)  to  buy  the 
tliinirs  that  were  needed  against  the  feast. 

Perhaps  some  light  may  be  thrown  upon  this 
matter  by  a  reference  to  Jolm,  xviii :  28,  narrating 
occurrences  that  certainly  took  place  after  tlie  institu- 
tion of  the  communion,  after  the  betrayal  by  Judas  and 
the  denial  by  Peter.  Jesus  was  led  from  Caiaphas 
into  the  hall  ofjudi;ment;  but  the  Jews  went  not  into 
the  Judgment  hall,  'Mest  they  should  be  defiled;  but 
that  they  might  eat  the  Passover."  Now,  since  the 
Saviour  had  at  this  time  certainly  eaten  his  supper 
with  his  disciples,  and  the  Jews  had  yet  the  feast  of 
the  Passover  before  them,  it  seems  that  the  Saviour 
must  have  eaten  this  supper  with  his  disciples  a  little 
before  the  time  that  the  Jews  ordinarily  ate  their 
Passover.  If  such  was  the  case — and  this  method  of 
accounting  for  this  apparent  discrepancy  seems  to  me 
to  be  satisfactory — the  language  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  John's  gospel, 
*'  Now,  before  the  feast  of  the  Passover,"  seems  to 
me  to  be  perfectly  applicable  and  appropriate,  upon 
the  hypothesis  that  the  supper  there  referred  to  was 
the  one  at  which  Jesus  instituted  the  communion. 

Now,  I  wish  to  present  some  difficulties  that  come 
up  before  my  mind,  upon  the  hypothesis  of  my  friend, 
assuming  that  the  supper  at  which  the  Saviour  washed 
the  disciples'  feet  was  at  the  house  of  Simon,  in 
Bethany,  several  days  before  the  institution  of  the 
communion. 

My  friend  said,  yesterday,  that  it  was  the  place  of 
Simon,  or  of  Simon's  servants,  to  wash  the  feet  of  his 
guests  ;  but  as  Simon  did  not  appear,  nor  any  of  his 
servants,  to  perform  this  act  of  hospitality,  therefore, 
our  Saviour  performed  it.  Now,  if  it  be  true  that  the 
washing  of  feet  was  a  common  custom  in  the  world  in 
those  days,  is  it  not  remarkably  strange  that  when 
such   a  noted  guest  as   our  blessed  Lord,  with  his 


294  DEBAfE    ON   FEET-WASHING. 

disciples,  entered  the  house  of  Simon,  there  was  no  one 
to  be  found  to  perform  this,  what  my  friend  would 
have  you  believe  to  have  been,  ordinary  act  of  hospi- 
tality? 

Another  difficulty  in  this  connection  is  this  :  The 
story  of  the  supper  at  Bethany  is  told  in  the  twelfth 
chapter  of  John ;  then  it  was  that  Mary  took  a  pound  of 
ointment  of  spikenard,  very  costly,  and  anointed  the 
feet  of  Jesus,  and  wiped  them  with  her  hair  ;  and  Judas 
complained,  saying,  "Why  was  not  this  ointment 
sold  for  three  hundred  pence,  and  given  to  the  poor?" 
Now,  you  can  identify  this  supper  by  referring  to  Mat- 
thew, twenty-sixth  chapter,  commencing  at  the  seventh 
verse.  Here  the  «ame  incident  is  related  of  a  woman 
with  an  alabaster  box  of  precious  ointment,  together 
with  the  complaint  at  this  extravagance,  and  the  ques- 
tion why  it  was  not  given  to  the  poor ;  together  with 
Christ's  reply  (John,  xii :  7,  8):  "  Then  said  Jesus,  Let 
her  alone :  against  the  day  of  my  burying  hath  she 
kept  this.  For  the  poor  always  ye  have  with  you; 
but  me  ye  have  not  always."  Matthew,  xxvi :  10,  11, 
12:  "Why  trouble  ye  the  woman?  for  she  hath 
wrought  a  good  work  upon  me.  For  ye  have  the 
poor  always  with  you  ;  but  me  ye  have  not  always. 
For  in  that  she  hath  poured  this  ointment  on  my 
body,  she  did  it  for  my  burial."  And  Matthew  says 
(see  verse  six  of  the  same  chapter),  this  occurred  at 
Bethany,  in  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper — where 
my  friend  says  the  supper  was  eaten  at  which  the 
Saviour  washed  his  disciples'  feet.  My  friend  says  it 
was  the  same  supper.  And  if  the  feet-washing  was 
done  at  Bethany  at  all,  it  must  have  been  at  this 
time  ;  for,  according  to  both  Matthew  and  John,  im- 
mediately afterward,  Jesus  and  his  disciples  went  up 
to  Jerusalem.  But  if  it  was  at  the  same  supper  that 
these  two  events  occurred,  it  is  strange  that  they 
should  never  have  been  referred  to  together,  when  so 


Mil.    (illNTEU's    FIFIIl    ADDRESS.  295 

8ugf!;estive  of  each  other.  It  is  more  strange,  that  Jolm 
himself,  who  records  both  acts,  should  mention  the  one 
in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  John,  proceed  to  narrate  the 
triumphal  entry  of  Jesus  into  Jerusalem,  and  events 
tliat  occurred  at  Jerusalem,  then  go  back  to  narrate 
in  the  thirteenth  chapter  another  event  of  the  supper  at 
BeUianii  (according  to  my  friend's  theory),  after  which 
we  find  liini  still  at  Jerusalem.  It  seems  to  me  more  nat- 
ural and  reasonable  to  conclude  that  the  feet-washing 
occurred  at  the  supper  at  Jerusalem,  with  the  events 
with  which  it  is  connected  in  order  of  time  and  ia  the 
story  as  recorded  in  the  sacred  narrative. 

There  is  a  third  difficulty  in  this  matter,  according 
to  my  friend's  theory,  that  is  worthy  of  consideration. 
He  says  this  feet-washing  was  performed  in  a  private 
family — the  family  of  Simon  the  leper,  in  Bethany. 
Now  let  us  see  how  private  this  family  was.  The 
Saviour  goes  there  with  his  disciples;  Martha  served, 
according  to  John's  account,  while  Lazarus  was  one 
of  them  that  sat  at  the  table  with  them  (chap,  xi : 
verse  2) ;  how  many  more  were  there,  we  do  not 
know,  but  from  circumstances  yet  to  come  to  light, 
probably  a  good  many  more;  but  let  that  pass.  ^Jow, 
according  to  my  friend's  account,  after  eatmg  supper, 
or  a  part  of  his  supper,  the  Saviour  gets  up,  gets 
water  and  a  towl — all  in  this  private  family  where 
he  is  an  invited  guest — and  goes  around  among  his 
disciples  and  washes  their  feet.  After  perforuiing 
this  humiliating  act,  he  takes  his  garment  again,  sits 
down  at  the  table,  and  a  conversation  follows  in  which 
Lazarus  and  others  of  the  family  are  utterly  ignored ; 
there  was  no  attention  whatever  paid  to  them ;  all  his 
discourse  was  directed  to  his  disciples,  to  whom  he 
preached  his  doctrines  and  proclaimed  his  purposes; 
exphiining  subject  after  subject,  inculcating  truth 
after  truth — all  in  the  bosom  of  this  quiet  family. 
Jesus  took  the  position  of  host,  instead  of  guest,  and 


206  DEBATE    ON   FEET-WASHING. 

occupied  the  time  and  attention  of  all  with  matters 
pertaining  entirely  to  himself  and  his  disciples. 
When  he  instituted  the  Lord's  Supper,  according  to 
the  other  three  evangelists,  he  asked  and  obtained  the 
consent  of  the  owner  of  the  house,  for  whatever  he 
might  wish  to  do.  In  this  case  there  was  no  such 
request;  but  being  invited  (according  to  my  friend's 
theory),  he  took  possession  of  the  house,  used  it  for 
his  own  purposes,  ignoring  the  family  entirely. 
Does  this  seem  to  be  at  all  likely  ?  On  the  con- 
trary, it  seems  to  me  to  be  very  unlikely. 

One  thing  more  :  Even  if  this  feet- washing  occurred, 
as  my  friend  asserts,  in  the  bosom  of  this  quiet  family, 
Jesus  washed  only  his  disciples'  feet.  It  was  a  wash- 
ing that  belonged  to  the  disciples  alone.  \_Time  ex- 
pired^ 


[MR  McCONNELL'S  FIFTH  ADDRESS.] 

Moderators  and  Friends — I  am  happy,  in  the 
providence  of  God,  to  be  permitted  to  meet  with  you 
again,  and  to  continue  the  investigation  of  the  great 
questions  before  us — questions  involving,  if  my  friend's 
doctrines  be  true,  the  honor  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the 
eternal  destiny  of  that  portion  of  the  human  race  who 
do  not  believe  in  the  washing  of  feet  m  tlie  public  as- 
semhly  of  ike  church. 

In  the  beginning  of  his  last  speech,  my  friend 
asserts  that  I,  yesterday,  assumed  the  position  "  that 
the  washings  of  the  hands  and  feet,  and  all  the  wash- 
ings performed  b}''  the  Jewish  priests,"  were  typical 
of  a  Christian  baptism.  I  did  not  take  that  position. 
If  any  such  conclusion  could  be  drawn  from  my  lan- 
guage, still  I  did  not  intend  to  assume  any  such  posi- 
tion. I  did  and  do  take  the  position  that  the  wash- 
ing in  the  brazen  laver  that  stood  at  the  entrance  of 


297 

the  holy  place  of  the  Jewish  tabernacle,  was  a  type 
of  baptism  ;  it  occupied  in  the  Mosaic  dispensation 
the  same  position  occupied  by  baptism  in  the  Christ- 
ian dispensation. 

My  friend  seemed  to  find  it  difficult  to  rid  himself 
of  the  impression  that  we  were  still  discussing  the 
question  of  trine  immersion.  True,  he  did  not  use 
the  word  ''trine;"  but  he  argued  th.at,  if  the  washing 
of  the  body  of  the  priest  when  he  was  inducted  into 
office  were  a  type  of  Christian  baptism,  and  then,  if  the 
washing  of  the  hands  and  of  the  feet,  taken  sepa- 
rately, were  a  type  of  Christian  baptism,  then  we  have 
three  types  of  baptism  ;  consequently,  three  baptisms. 
Now,  I  ask,  was  not  the  lamb  that  was  slain  in  Egypt 
on  the  niglit  when  the  destroying  angel  passed  over 
the  habitations  of  the  Hebrews,  a  type  of  Christ  ?  and 
was  not  the  scapegoat  that  was  led  into  the  wilderness, 
a  type  of  Christ  ?  and  was  not  Isaac,  that  was  offered  up 
by  Abraham  on  the  altar,  a  type  of  Christ  ?  Then,  if 
for  each  type  there  must  be  an  anti-type,  we  must  have 
three  Christs  under  this  dispensation.  I  am  sure  tliis 
looks  quite  plausible — as  much  so  as  ni}^  friend's  argu- 
ment tor  trine  immersion,  grounded  on  a  similar  basis. 
In  fact,  there  were  more  than  three  types  of  Christ. 
There  was  the  rock  that  Moses  smote,  that  was  a 
type  of  Christ;  and  Moses  himself  was  a  type  of 
Christ;  and  so  was  Aaron,  and  Abraham,  and  David, 
and  Melchizedek,  and  the  brazen  serpent  in  the  wil- 
derness. And,  according  to  my  friend's  argument,  we 
must  have  a  large  number  of  Christs,  one  for  each 
type  ;  for  he  insists  that  if  we  have  three  types  of 
baptism,  we  must  necessarily  have  three  baptisms. 
So,  though  my  friend's  argument  in  behalf  of  trine 
immersion  has  no  place  in  the  discussion  of  this  ques- 
tion, it  still  leaves  my  position  intact. 

Our    Tonker    brethren    generally    argue,    and    my 
brother  Quinter  has  this  morning  argued,  in  favor  of 


298         DEBATE  OX  FEET- WASHING. 

feet-washing  as  a  piibllc  ordinance^  because,  as  they 
assume,  feet-washing  and  the  communion  were  insti- 
tuted at  the  same  time  and  phice  ;  and  since  the  com- 
munion is  a  rite  of  public  religious  worship,  so  is  feet- 
washing.  1  want  YOU  to  get  this  position  fairly  and 
clearly  before  your  minds  ;  for  I  wish  to  show  you  that 
the  premises  are  not  true.  I  shall  prove  to  you  that 
the  wasliiiig  of  the  disciples'  feet  was  7iot  done  at  the 
same  time,  nor  at  the  same  place,  at  which  the  com- 
munion was  instituted.  We  have  now  an  issue  that  is 
tangible  ;  in  fact,  about  the  first  tangible  issue  that 
we  have  been  able  to  arrive  at  in  this  discussion. 

And,  first,  I  will  show  you  when  and  where  Christ 
instituted  the  communion.  He  instituted  it  at  the 
same  time  and  place  that  he  ate  the  Jewish  Passover, 
which,  according  to  the  law,  took  place  on  the  four- 
teenth day  of  the  first  month,  in  the  City  of  Jerusalem. 
Proof,  Matthew,  xxvi :  17-21 :  "  Now,  the  first  day  of 
the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  the  disciples  came  to 
Jesus,  saying  unto  him.  Where  wilt  thou  that  we  pre- 
pare for  thee  to  eat  the  Passover  ?  And  he  said.  Go 
into  the  city  to  such  a  man,  and  say  unto  him,  The 
Master  saith.  My  time  is  at  hand ;  I  will  keep  the 
Passover  at  thy  house  with  my  disciples.  And  the 
disciples  did  as  Jesus  had  appointed  them  ;  and  they 
made  ready  the  Passover."  This  determines  the  time; 
and  by  reading  on  a  few  verses  you  will  find  that  at 
the  close  of  this  Paschal  supper,  at  Jerusalem,  Chrjst 
instituted  the  communion.  See  Mark,  xiv  :  12-24, 
for  confirmation  upon  this  point. 

I  will  now  show  that  Christ  washed  his  disciples' 
feet  at  a?io^//.er  supper,  at  another  place,  and  two  days 
prior  in  point  of  time.  Turn  to  John's  testimony, 
thirteenth  chapter,  first  verse:  ''Now,  before  the 
feast  of  the  Passover."  Query — how  long  ?  Turn  to 
Matthew,  xxvi :  2  :  "  Ye  know  that  after  itvo  days  rs 
the  feast  of  the  Passover,  and  the  Son  of  man  is  be- 


MR.    m'CONNELl's   fifth    ADDRESS.  299 

trajetl  to  be  crucified."  AVhere  was  this  ?  Read  the 
sixth  verse,  and  you  will  find  it  was  in  the  house  of 
Simon  the  leper.  I  wish  to  say  here,  thoui^h  I  sup- 
pose, to  the  most  of  you,  the  remark  aviH  be  un- 
necessary, that  each  of  the  evan<j;elists  gives  us  but  a 
partial  history  of  the  doings  and  sayings  of  the  Son 
of  God ;  each  relates  some  things  that  the  others 
omit,  and  omits  some  things  that  the  others  relate. 
So  we  can  not  get  a  clear  understanding  of  many 
things  without  spreading  the  entire  record  before  us, 
and  placing  the  various  incidents  in  regular  order 
before  our  minds,  no  matter  by  whom  they  may  be 
narrated. 

Turn  now  to  John,  xiii :  2.  And  before  proceeding 
any  further  on  this  chain  of  argument,  I  wish  to  notice 
for  a  moment  my  friend's  criticism  on  the  phrase, 
"  Supper  being  ended.'''  He  says  that  is  wrongly 
translated  ;  that  the  original  word  is  one  of  very  indefi- 
nite meaning ;  and  that  it  should  be  translated,  '*  Supper 
being  prepared^'^  or  "  Supper  being  served.'"  But,  in 
the  fourth  verse,  we  read  that  he  rose  from  supper. 
Now,  men  do  not  usually  rise  from  a  meal  that  is  just 
"prepared"  for  them  to  sit  down  to,  nor  from  one 
that  has  just  been  "  served  ;"  but  it  is  much  more  nat- 
ural to  imagine  a  man  rising  from  supper  after  having 
finished  eating  it.  Then  is  the  time  we  usually  get 
up  from  supper.  Greenfield  says,  in  his  Greek  Lexi- 
con of  the  New  Testament,  that  the  word  here  means 
"  during"  supper.  But  the  point  is  one  of  small 
moment,  at  best,  and  does  not  interfere  with  my  argu- 
ment. It  is  already  proved  that  at  this  supper,  which 
took  place  at  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper,  at  Beth- 
any, two  days  before  the  Passover,  Jesus  (John,  xiii : 
4—5)  "  riseth  from  supper,  and  laid  aside  his  garments, 
and  took  a  towel,  and  girded  himself;  after  that,  he 
poured  water  into  a  basin,  and  began  to  wash  the  dis- 
ciples' feet."     And  thus  I  have  shown  that  the  com- 


300  DEBATE    ON   FEET-WASHING. 

munion  and  feet-wasliing  are  not  associated  together 
by  Christ's  example;  but,  on  the  contrary,  are  sepa- 
rated, both  as  to  time  and  place.  And  thus  I  answer 
all  the  arguments  of  my  friends,  the  Tonkers,  drawn 
from  the  supposed  connection  between  the  two,  in 
favor  of  feet-washing  being,  like  the  communion,  a 
religious  ordinance,  to  be  attended  to  in  the  public 
assembly  of  the  church. 

But  to  this  claim  of  mine,  that  two  separate  sup- 
pers are  here  spoken  of,  my  friend  interposes  several 
objections,  arising  from  the  fact  that  similar  conversa- 
tions occur  between  him  and  certain  disciples  in  rela- 
tion to  Judns,  and  between  him  and  Peter,  on  both 
occasions.  This,  he  says,  forever  forbids  the  idea 
that  the  sacred  writers  are  referring  to  anything  but 
one  and  the  same  supper. 

My  friend  says  that  Christ,  at  the  supper  at  w^hich 
he  washed  the  disciples'  feet,  foretold  that  Peter 
should  deny  him  before  the  cock  should  crow  :  while 
if  this  supper  took  place  at  Bethany,  cock-crowing 
must  have  occurred  several  times  before  Peter's  denial 
of  our  Saviour.  But  I  deny  that  the  Saviour  foretold 
Peter's  denial  of  him  at  the  supper  at  which  he  washed 
the  feet  of  his  disciples.  Let  us  look  at  this  matter 
closely.  We  must  recollect  that  facts  narrnted  in  the 
same  chapter  are  not  always  necessarily  related  as  to 
time  and  place.  The  division  of  the  Bible  into  chap- 
ters is  the  work  of  men,  uninspired  men,  for  conven- 
ience of  reference,  and  is  comparatively  of  recent  oi'igin. 

In  the  thirtieth  verse  of  this  thirteenth  chapter  of 
John's  testimony,  we  read  that  Judas,  "  having  re- 
ceived the  sop,  went  immediatel}^  out."  I  ask,  where 
did  he  go?  Turn  to  Matthew,  xxvi :  14,  15,  16,  and 
you  will  find  that  he  "  went  unto  the  chief  priests,  and 
said  unto  them,  What  will  ye  give  me,  and  I  will  de- 
liver him  unto  you?  And  tlioy  covenanted  with  him 
for  thirty  pieces  of  silver.     And  from  that  time  he 


MR.    M'cONNELL's   FIFTU    ADDRESS.  301 

sought  opportunity  to  betray  him."  Now  this  lan- 
guage, '' tVoni  that  time  lie  sought  oppoi-tunity  to 
betray  him,"  proves  that  tiie  supper  referred  to  in  the 
Context,  preeeded  by  some  time  the  actual  betrayal. 
In  fact,  we  are  told  (Matthew,  xxvi :  2),  that  this 
suj)per  from  which  Judas  rose  to  go  and  consult  with 
the  chief  priests  in  regard  to  the  betrayal  of  Jesus, 
occurred  two  days  before  the  Passover  ;  and  that  it 
-was  not  at  UiIh  supper,  but  at  the  Paschal  supper, 
tliat  Christ  foretold  to  Peter  that  he  shouhl  deny 
his  Master  (read  from  the  seventeenth  to  the  thirty- 
fifrh  verse  of  this  same  twenty-sixth  chapter  of 
Matthew).  This  proves  that  the  last  three  verses  of 
the  thirteenth  chapter  of  John's  testimony  are  not 
connected,  as  regards  time  and  place,  with  the  pre- 
ceding portion  of  the  chapter.  Indeed,  Peter's  ques- 
tion (verse  thirty-six),  shows  that  Christ  and  the  dis- 
ciples were  not  now  at  supper,  but  that  some  time 
had  elapsed,  and  that  this  was  on  an  occasion  -when 
they  were  about  to  go  somewhere ;  for  Peter  says, 
*'  Lord,  whither  goest  thou  ?" 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  order  of  events  was  as  fol- 
lows :  John,  in  the  commencement  of  chapter  thirteen, 
narrates  the  story  of  a  supper  at  Bethany,  at  which 
the  Saviour  washed  the  feet  of  his  disciples,  to  which 
supper  Matthew,  chapter  twenty-six,  also  refers,  fix- 
ing the  time — two  days  before  the  Passover;  both 
mention  the  fact  of  Judas  going  out  to  consult  with 
the  chief  priests  in  regard  to  the  betrayal  of  Jesus. 
Matthew,  as  also  Mark  and  Luke,  give  the  particulars 
of  events  that  transpired  during  the  next  two  days, 
including  the  institution  of  the  communion  ;  all  this 
John  omits,  but,  at  the  close  of  the  thirteenth  chapter, 
brings  in  a  conversation  between  Christ  and  Peter,  in 
reference  to  the  latter  denying  his  Master,  which  from 
the  other  evangelists  we  know  occurred  after  the  close 


302  DEBATE  ON   FEET-WASHING. 

of  the  Pasclial  supper — though  John  says  not  a  word 
as  to  when  or  where  it  occurred. 

My  friend  founds  another  argument  against  the 
theory  of  there  being  two  separate  suppers  referred 
to  by  the  evangelists,  on  the  ground  of  the  same  con- 
versation being  held  between  the  Saviour  and  certain 
of  his  disciples  in  regard  to  Judas.  But  it  will  be 
seen  that  it  is  not  the  same  conversation,  but  a  sub- 
stantially and  entirely  different  conversation.  The  same 
inquiry  is  made  on  both  occasions,  but  note  the  differ- 
ent replies.  John  says  (thirteenth  chapter,  twenty- 
sixth  verse),  that  Christ  replied,  "He  it  is  to  whom  I 
shall  give  a  sop,  when  I  have  dipped  it."  Matthew 
says  (twenty-sixth  chapter,  twenty-third  verse),  "He 
that  dippeth  his  hand  with  me  in  the  dish,  the  same 
shall  betray  me."  And  in  the  former  case  it  is  stated 
that  when  he  had  dipped  the  sop,  he  gave  it  to  Judas ; 
while  in  the  latter  it  is  said  that  when  Judas,  too,  like 
the  rest,  inquired,  "  Master,  is  it  I?"  the  Saviour  an- 
swered, "  Thou  hast  said."  Here  are  different  conver- 
sations, different  signs,  different  acts ;  and  this  proves 
the  sacred  writers  to  be  referring  to  different  suppers. 

My  friend  raises  another  difficulty,  by  referring  to 
the  case  of  the  woman  who  anointed  the  Saviour  with 
a  box  of  precious  ointment ;  by  a  reference  to  this,  he 
seeks  to  identify  the  supper  at  the  house  of  Simon 
the  leper,  at  Bethany,  not  with  the  supper  at  wliich 
the  Saviour  washed  his  disciples'  feet,  according  to 
my  theory,  but  Avith  one  held  at  Bethany  at  the  house 
of  Mary  and  Martha,  at  which  Lazarus  was  present. 
But  it  is  evident  that  these  were  two  separate  and 
distinct  su]:>pers.  There  were  two  women  who  anointed 
Jesus.  The  one  occurred  (Matt.,  xxvi ;  2)  tivo  days 
before  the  feast  of  the  Passover;  the  other  (John, 
xii:  1)  six  days  before.  The  one  occurred  at  the 
house  of  Simon  tlie  leper;  the  other  at  the  house  of 
Mary  and  Martha  and  Lazarus.     The  one  poured  the 


MR.    m'cONNELL'    fifth    ADDRESS.  303 

ointment  upon  tlie  head  of  Jesus  (Mattliew,  xxvi :  7); 
the  otlier  anointed  his  feet  (John,  xii:  3).  Mattliew 
says  it  was  "an  ahibaster  box  of  very  precious  oint- 
ment." Jolin  says  it  was  "a  pound  of  ointment  of 
spikenard  ;"  Matthew  says,  the  disciples  had  indin;na- 
tion  ;"  John  says,  Judas  Iscariot  complained.  Plere 
different  times,  different  places,  different  circumstan- 
ces, are  clearly  and  unmistakably  set  forth;  and  these 
difficulties  can  be  reconciled  only  by  acknowledging 
them  to  have  occurred  at  separate  suppers. 

To  review  the  whole  ground  in  reference  to  these 
suppers  :  There  are  three  suppers  mentioned  by  the 
evangelists.  The  first  is  that  mentioned  in  the 
twelfth  chapter  of  John,  at  the  house  of  Mary  and 
Martha  and  Lazarus,  six  days  before  the  Passover. 
The  second  is  that  mentioned  in  the  thirteenth  chap- 
ter of  John,  and  referred  to  in  the  twenty-sixth  chap- 
ter of  Matthew,  where  we  find  that  it  took  place  at 
the  house  of  Simon  the  leper,  in  Bethany,  two  days 
before  the  Passover.  At  this  supper  it  was  that  the 
Saviour  washed  his  disciples'  feet.  The  third  supper 
is  the  Paschal  supper,  after  which  the  Saviour  insti- 
tuted the  communion. 

I  will  now  refer  to  a  difficulty  my  friend  raises  in 
endeavoring  to  fix  the  time  when  the  Lord's  Supper 
was  instituted.  Because  it  is  said  (John,  xiii :)  that 
the  supper  at  which  the  Saviour  washed  his  disciples' 
feet  was  "before  the  feast  of  the  Passover,"  and  be- 
cause (John  xviii ;  28),  on  the  morning  after  the 
Lord's  Supper,  some  of  the  Jews  "went  not  into  the 
judgment  hall  lest  they  should  be  defiled,"  as  they 
had  not  yet  eaten  the  Passover,  my  friend  concludes 
that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  instituted  before  the  ordi- 
nary time  of  eating  the  Paschal  supper;  from  which 
he  argues  that,  both  being  before  the  Passover,  they 
are  both  the  same  supper.  This  is  done  to  accommo- 
date his  theory  that  the  feet-washing  was  performed 


304  DEBATE    ON   FEET-WASHING. 

at  the  same  time  and  place  with  the  institution  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  This  difficulty  at  first  looks  some- 
what formidable ;  but  it  vanishes  at  a  touch  when  we 
recollect  that  the  feast  of  which  these  Jews  had  not 
yet  partaken  lasted  for  seven  days;  see  Leviticus, 
xxiii :  5,  6  :  "In  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month, 
at  even,  is  the  Lord's  Passover."  That  evening  the 
Saviour  partook  of  the  Passover  with  his  disciples, 
and  instituted  the  communion.  "  On  the  fifteenth 
day  of  the  same  month  is  the  feast  of  unl'eavened 
bread  unto  the  Lord  ;  seven  days  ye  must  eat  unleav- 
ened bread."  Now  read  Luke,  xxii :  1:  "Now  the 
feast  of  unleavened  bread  drew  nigh,  which  is  called 
the  Passover."  And  if  we  read  the  record  closely, 
we  shall  find  that  it  was  this  feast  of  unleavened 
bread,  on. the  fifteenth  day  of  the  month,  to  which 
reference  is  made  in  John,  xviii :  28,  of  which  the 
Jews  had  not  yet  partaken,  and  for  which  they  de- 
sired to  keep  themselves  undefiled. 

Now,  I  have  presented  this  matter  before  you  in 
such  a  shape  that  I  apprehend  every  difliculty  van- 
ishes. I  have  shown  conclusively  that  there  are 
three  suppers  recorded.  It  was  at  the  second  of  these 
suppers  that  the  Saviour  gave  the  sop  to  Judas,  and 
he  went  out  to  consult  with  the  chief  priests;  they 
offered  him  fifteen  dollars  to  betray  his  Master  into 
their  hands,  and  he  accepted  the  proposition ;  the 
particulars  were  arranged ;  two  days  after,  Jesus  and 
his  disciples  eat  another  supper,  the  Paschal  supper; 
then  Judas  went  and  told  the  chief  priests  that  here 
was  an  opportunity  to  seize  their  victim  ;  from  the 
supper-room  they  went  into  the  garden,  the  sad  Gar- 
den of  Gethsemane,  whither  Judas  followed,  accom- 
panied by  "a  great  multitude  with  swords  and  staves, 
from  the  chief  priests  and  eUlers  of  the  people."  Now, 
to  do  this,  some  little  time  was  necessary  ;  the  find- 
ing of  the  chief  priests,  the  consummating  of  the  bar- 


MR.  quinter's  sixth   address.  305 

gnin  for  the  betrayal,  the  orfjanizing  of  the  hand  to 
seize  the  Saviour,  and  all  the  other  particulars  re- 
corded as  having  occurred  between  the  time  that 
Satan  entered  into  Judas  and  tlie  time  that  he  betrayed 
Jesus,  could  not  have  transpired  in  the  few  minutes — 
an  hour  or  two,  at  most — that  elapsed  between  the 
conclusion  of  the  supper  and  the  seizure  of  Jesus  in 
the  Garden.  It  is  far  more  natural  to  suppose  that  a 
couple  of  days  were  occupied  in  perfecting  the  ar- 
rangements for  the  betrayal. 

I  add,  in  conclusion,  that  the  example  of  our 
Saviour,  in  washing  the  feet  of  his  disciples,  as  re- 
corded in  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  John,  did  not  occur 
in  the  Christian  church,  but  before  the  church  was 
established,  and,  consequently,  is  not  in  point,  whether 
public  or  private,  as  the  proposition  contemplates  only 
the  washing  of  feet  in  the  public  assembly  of  the 
church.     ^Time  expired. 


[MR.  QUINTER'S  SIXTH  ADDRESS.] 

Friendly  Moderators — It  is  possible  that  the 
fault  may  all  be  in  my  own  dullness  of  comprehen- 
sion, but  I  confess  that  the  subject  of  these  suppers 
has  not  been  made  as  clear  to  my  mind  as  it  seems  to 
be  in  the  mind  of  my  friend.  That  there  are  some 
diflficultiea  attending  those  suppers,  we  freely  admit; 
but  the  theory  adopted  by  my  friend  does  not  by  any 
means  do  away  with  those  difficulties. 

He  contends  that  the  supper  mentioned  in  the 
twenty-sixth  chapter  of  Matthew  is  a  diifercnt  supper 
from  that  mentioned  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  John; 
that  the  one  took  place  six  days  before  the  Passover, 
the  other  two  days  before  the  Passover.  But  there 
are  several  circumstances  which  serve  to  identify  the 
20  ^ 


306  DEBATE    ON   FEET-WASHING. 

two  records  as  pertaining  to  the  same  supper.  Let 
us  look  at  them  a  little  more  closely. 
'  Matthew  says  :  '*  Now  when  Jesus  was  in  Bethany, 
in  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper,  there  came  unto  him 
a  woman  having  an  alabaster  box  of  very  precious 
ointment,  and  poured  it  on  his  head  as  he  sat  at  meat. 
But  when  his  disciples  saw  it,  they  had  indif^nation, 
saying,  To  what  purpose  is  this  waste  ?  For  this 
ointment  might  have  been  sold  for  much,  and  given 
to  the  poor.  When  Jesus  understood  it,  he  said  unto 
them.  Why  trouble  ye  the  woman?  for  she  hath 
wrought  a  good  work  upon  me.  For  ye  have  the  poor 
always  with  you  ;  but  me  ye  have  not  alwajs.  For  in 
that  she  hath  poured  this  on  my  body,  she  did  it 
for  my  burial."     (Matthew,  xxvi  :  6-12.) 

John  says  :  "Then  took  Mary  a  pound  of  ointment 
of  spikenard,  very  costly,  and  anointed  the  feet  of 
Jesus,  and  wiped  his  feet  with  her  hair  :  and  the 
house  was  filled  with  the  odor  of  the  ointment.  Then 
saith  one  of  his  disciples,  Judas  Iscariot,  Simon's  son, 
which  should  betray  him,  Why  was  not  this  ointment 
sold  for  three  hundred  pence,  and  given  to  the  poor  ? 
*  *  Then  said  Jesus,  Let  her  alone  :  against  the 
day  of  my  burying  hath  she  kept  this.  For  the 
poor  always  ye  have  with  you  ;  but  me  ye  have  not 
always."     (John,  xii :  3-8.) 

Now,  do  you  see  the  sameness  of  these  two  stories  ? 
Can  you  believe  that,  at  two  different  suppers,  two 
wom.en. should  anoint  our  Saviour  with  two  separate 
boxes  of  ointment ;  that  the  desciples  should  make 
the  same  complaint,  in  almost  identical  language,  on 
the  two  occasions  ;  that  in  response  to  this  complaint, 
Christ  should  reprove  them,  telling  them  on  each  oc- 
casion, "  ye  have  the  poor  nlways  with  you,  but  me 
ye  have  not  always;"  that  on  each  occasion  he 
should  add  that  this  anointing  was  for  his  burial  ;  and 
that  all  thqsc  rcmakably  parallel   particulars  should 


MR.  quinter's  sixth  address.  307 

happen  at  tlio  same  place,  Bethany,  and  within  two 
or  tliree  days'  time  of  each  other,  at  furthest  ?  The 
utter  utdikelihood  of  two  acts  so  simihir  occurrirjg  at 
the  same  phice,  and  so  nearly  at  the  same  time,  liave 
caused  our  best  critics  to  identify  the  supper  of  tlie 
twenty-sixth  chapter  of  Matthew,  and  of  the  twelfth 
chapter  of  John,  as  being  the  same  supper. 

But,  should  my  friend  succeed  in  removing  these 
difficulties,  his  attempt  to  prove  that  the  supper  at 
i^rhich  our  Saviour  washed  the  disciples'  feet  was  a  dif- 
ferent supper  from  that  at  which  he  instituted  the 
communion,  involves  him  into  still  greater  difficulties 
in  regard  to  two  other  suppers — or  what  he  insists 
are  two  separate  and  distinct  suppers,  but  which  we 
hold  to  be  different  stories  of  the  same  supper. 

John  says  that,  at  the  supper  at  which  Jesus  washed 
his  disciples'  feet,  "  he  was  troubled  in  spirit,  and 
testified,  and  said.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  That 
one  of  you  shall  betray  me.  Tlien  the  disciples  looked 
one  on  another,  doubting  of  whom  he  spake.  Now 
there  was  leaning  on  Jesus'  bosom  one  of  his  disciples, 
whom  Jesus  loved.  Simon  Peter  therefore  beckoned 
to  him,  that  he  should  ask  who  it  should  be  of  whom 
he  spake.  He  then.  lying  on  Jesus'  breast,  saith  unto 
him.  Lord,  who  is  it?  Jesus  answered,  He  it  is  to 
whom  I  shall  give  a  sop  when  I  have  dipped  it. 
And  when  he  had  dipped  the  sop,  he  gave  it  to  Judas 
Iscariot,  the  son  of  Simon."      (John,  xiii :  21-2(3.) 

Matthew  says,  speaking  of  the  supper  at  Avhich 
Jesus  ijistituted  the  communion,  *'  Now  when  the 
even  was  come,  he  sat  down  with  the  twelve.  And 
as  they  did  eat,  he  said.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  That 
one  of  you  shall  betray  me.  And  they  were  exceed- 
ing sorrowful,  and  bt^gan  every  one  of  them  to  say 
unto  him,  Lord,  is  it  I  ?  And  he  answered  and  said, 
He  that  dippeth  his  hand  with  me  in  the  dish,  the 
same  shall  betray  me.     (Matthew,  xxvi :  20-2-3.) 


308  DEBATE    ON    FEET-WASHING. 

Now,  can  we  believe  that  such  conversation  and  acts 
as  this  could  have  taken  phice  at  two  different  suppers, 
but  two  days  apart  ?  Upon  my  friend's  theory,  the 
Saviour  twice  informed  his  disciples  that  one  of  tliem 
were  to  betray  liim  ;  twice  they  anxiously  inquired 
who  was  to  be  his  betrayer;  and  twice  he  pointed  out 
Judas  to  them  by  an  unmistakable  sign.  Now,  when 
they  were  so  "exceeding  sorrowful  "  at  this  prophesied 
treachery,  each  knowing  the  weakness  of  his  own 
heart,  having  had  long  experience  of  his  Master's 
infallible  insio;ht,  and  each  fearino;  that  himself  was 
the  one  that  was  to  be  led  away  into  this  terrible 
crime,  and  each  asking,  "  Lord  is  it  I?" — and  when 
at  last  Judas  was  pointed  out  as  being  the  one  who 
was  to  betray  his  Lord — I  say,  after  all  this,  does  any 
believe  that  inside  of  two  days,  another  similar  con- 
versation occurred ;  that  the  disciples  could  all  of 
them  have  entirely  forgotten  the  incidents  of  the  so 
^recently  preceding  supper  ;  that,  even  in  the  moment 
of  their  deep  anxiety  and  exceeding  sorrow,  no  one 
of  them  all  should  have  recollected  that  it  was  not 
himself,  but  Judas,  that  was  to  perform  this  act  of 
vile  and  unparalleled  treachery,  and  that  a  second  ex- 
posure of  Judas  should  have  been  necessary,  and  be- 
ing necessary,  should  take  place  in  the  same  manner 
as  before  ?  Yet  all  this  you  must  believe,  unnat- 
ural, improbable,  I  may  say  impossible  as  it  is,  if 
you  accept  my  friend's  theory  that  the  supper  at 
which  our  Saviour  washed  his  disciples'  feet,  and  made 
Judas  know^n  to  them  as  his  betrayer,  was  a  different 
supper  from  that  at  which  he  instituted  the  com- 
munion and  made  Judas  known  as  his  betrayer. 
jNLitthew  and  John  refer  to  the  same  supper.  It 
would  be  doing  violence  to  human  reason,  and  to  the 
Scriptures  of  divine  truth,  to  separate  these  sup[)ers. 
Then,  I  hold  my  position   to   be  sustained  :    that  tiie 


MR.    QUINTER's   sixth    ADDRESS.  309 

washing  of  the  disciples'  feet  and  tlie  institution  of 
the  communion  took  phvce  at  the  same  time,  in  tiie  same 
place,  under  similur  circumstances;  are  alike  enfoi'ced 
hy  the  command  of  Christ,  and  are  of  the  same  binding 
authority  as  religious  ordinances,  upon  followers  of 
Christ,  everywhere,  and   in  all   ages  of  the  world. 

But  my  friend  says  all  this  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  matter,  because  the  feet- washing  performed  by 
Jesus  was  not  done  in  the  church ;  that  the  church 
was  not  3"et  organized  then.  But  let  us  look  and  see 
what  we  can  find  out  about  this  matter.  Turn  back 
to  Matthew,  eighteenth  chapter,  fifteenth  to  the  eigh- 
teenth verse  :  "  Moreover,  if  thy  brother  shall  trespass 
against  thee,  go  and  tell  him  his  fault  between  thee 
and  him  alone :  if  he  shall  hear  thee,  thou  hast 
gained  thy  brother.  But  if  he  will  not  hear  thee, 
then  take  with  thee  one  or  two  more,  that  in  the 
mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  every  word  may  be 
established.  And  if  he  shall  neglect  to  hear  them, 
tell  it  unto  the  church;  but  if  he  neglect  to  hear  the 
church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  a  heathen  man  and  a 
publican.  Verily  I  say  unto  you.  Whatsoever  ye  shall 
bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven  ;  and  what- 
soever ye  shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in 
heaven.''  That  looks  a  good  deal  as  if  there  was  a 
church.  And  we  read  in  the  Acts,  at  the  very  begin- 
ning of  the  apostles'  preaching  at  Jerusalem,  that 
"the  Lord  added  to  the  church  daily  such  as  should 
be  saved."  Then  there  must  have  been  a  church  in 
existence  before,  or  they  could  not  have  been  added 
to  it.  That  was  the  "  church"  the  Saviour  alluded  to, 
unquestionably ;  and  he  certainly  gave  directions  as 
to  what  should  be  done  with  an  unworth}''  member  in 
the  "  church." 

My  friend  holds,  I  suppose,  in  common  with  his 
brethren,  that  no  Christian  church  was  in  existence 
till  organized  by  Peter  at  Jerusalem,  on  the  day  of 


310  DEBATE   ON  FEET-WASHING. 

pentecost;  and  it  is  upon  this  ground  that  he  rejects 
feet-washing  from  being  a  church  ordinance,  because 
performed  and  commanded  before  the  church  had  an 
existence.  But  where  do  we  obtain  baptism  ?  Does 
not  this  same  objection,  if  it  be  a  valid  one,  hohl  as 
strongly  against  baptism  as  against  feet-washing  ? 
Was  not  the  commission,  commanding  the  disciples 
to  go  forth  "  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,"  given  anterior  to  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
and  the  organization  of  the  church,  according  to  my 
friend's  theory?  And  that  other  ordinance,  the  com- 
munion, that,  too,  originated  at  the  same  time  with 
feet-washing,  I  assert,  while  my  friend  dates  its 
origin  only  two  days  later.  The  same  reasoning 
which  argues  feet- washing  out  of  the  Christian  church, 
because  it  was  performed  and  commanded  before  the 
churcli  was  organized,  also  argues  baptism  and  the 
communion  out  of  the  church,  because  they  were 
instituted  before  the  church  was  organized. 

But  I  am  not  prepared  to  accept  of  these  con- 
clusions. There  was  a  church  of  Christ  in  existence 
before  the  day  of  Pentecost.  A  church  was  recog- 
nized as  being  in  existence  in  the  eighteenth  chapter 
of  Matthew,  already  referred  to.  Do  you  ask  who 
constituted  that  church  ?  I  answer,  the  disciples  of 
our  blessed  Redeemer.  They  it  was  that  he  com- 
manded to  baptize  all  nations.  Among  them,  his 
church,  he  instituted  the  communion.  Among  and 
upon  his  disciples,  his  church,  he  performed  the  act 
of  feet-washing,  and  commanded  them,  the  members 
of  his  church,  to  wash  one  another's  feet.  I  do  not 
care  an  iota  where  it  was,  whether  it  was  in  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem,  or  in  the  house  of  Simon  the 
leper,  at  Betliany ;  that  is  not  material. 

Another  th(jught  upon  this  matter.  Paul 
says  (Hebrews,  iii :    5-G),  ''Moses    verily  was  faith- 


MR.    QUIXTElt'S    SIXTH    ADDUlvSS.  811 

fill  ill  all  his  house,  as  a  servant,  for  a  testimony 
of  those  things  which  were  to  be  spoken  after;  But 
Christ  as  a  Son  over  his  own  house;  tuhoae  house  are 
100^  if  we  hold  fast  the  confidence  and  the  rejoicing  of 
the  hope  firm  unto  the  end."  If  we  believe  in  the 
Saviour,  and  cling  to  him,  we  are  his  house,  his 
people,  his  church.  Do  you  remember  that  endear- 
iiiiz;  lantTuaoje  of  his,  when  one  came  to  him  and  said, 
"  Behold,  thy  mother  and  thy  brethren  stand  without, 
desiring  to  speak  with  thee."  And  he  stretched 
forth  his  hand  toward  his  disciples  and  said,  '' Behold 
my  mother  and  my  brethren  !  For  whosoever  shall 
do  the  will  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven,  the 
same  is  my  brother,  and  sister,  and  mother." 
Christ's  family  is  composed  of  those  who  obey  and 
follow  him;  and  Christ's  family,  whether  before  or 
after  the  day  of  Pentecost,  are  his  church. 

It  matters  not,  then,  where  the  act  of  feet-washing 
was  performed  by  the  Saviour;  the  question  is,  hy 
whom  and  to  2vhom  it  was  performed.  It  was  per- 
formed by  our  Saviour  upon  his  disciples,  his  family, 
his  church;  by  him  as  their  Lord  and  Master,  the 
Head  of  the  church ;  it  was  done  among  them,  and 
therefore  in  the  church ;  and  he  commanded  them  to 
do  as  he  had  done.  I  am  confident  that  less  difficul- 
ties will  be  found  in  harmonizing  this  matter  of  the 
suppers,  on  the  theory  that  the  Saviour  washed  his 
disciples'  feet  at  the  same  supper  when  he  instituted 
the  communion,  than  on  my  friend's  theory ;  but 
even  should  he  sustain  his  point  in  this  respect,  I  am 
showing  that,  whether  done  at  Jerusalem  at  the  feast 
of  the  Passover,  or  in  a  private  house,  at  some  other 
place  and  time,  it  was  still  done  to  his  disciples,  his 
church.  His  whole  discourse  was  directed  to  his  dis- 
ciples, and  to  no  one  else. 

I  will  now  proceed  with  my  second  argument  in 
proof  of  my  position  that   feet-washing   is   an  ordi- 


312  DEBATE    ON    FEET-WASIIING. 

nance  to  be  observed  in  the  public  assembly  of  the 
church.  You  will  not  forget  that  I  have  sustained 
the  ground  that  feet-washing  is  an  ordinance,  a  com- 
mand to  be  observed  ;  my  friend  admitted  all  this — 
that  it  was  a  commandment  of  Christ,  and  that  Christ 
intended  that  it  should  be  observed  ;  he  almost  became 
offended  at  me,  because,  he  said,  I  would  not  let  him 
liave  feet-washing,  but  was  trying  to  take  it  away 
from  him  altogether;  so  we  have  his  acknowledgment 
that  feet-washing  was  commanded  and  was  intended 
to  be  observed.  I  shall  proceed  to  show  the  propriety, 
the  utility,  the  necessity,  if  you  please,  of  its  being 
observed  in  a  public  capacity — in  the  public  assembly 
of  the  church. 

My  second  argument  in  support  of  the  position 
that  feet-washing  is  an  ordinance  to  be  performed  in 
the  public  assembly  of  the  church,  is  grounded  upon 
the  public  character  of  the  church. 

The  church  of  Christ  is  represented  as  occupying 
a  very  elevated  and  conspicuous  position  in  the 
Avorld  :  "  Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world.  A  city  that 
is  set  upon  a  hill  can  not  be  hid.  Neither  do  men 
light  a  candle  and  put  it  under  a  bushel,  but  on  a 
candlestick,  and  it  giveth  light  unto  all  that  are  in 
the  house.  Let  your  light  so  shine  before  men  that 
they  may  see  your  good  works,  and  glorify  your 
Father  which  is  in  heaven.     (Matthew,  v:  14—16.) 

Christians,  then,  are  the  light  of  the  world ;  and 
bearing  this  relation  to  the  world,  they  are  not  to 
conceal  their  Christianity  from  the  world.  And  why 
should  a  Christian  conceal  any  of  his  doctrines  or  of 
liis  life  from  the  world?  There  is  nothing  dishonor- 
able in  either,  if  his  life  is  the  result  of  his  doctrine. 
And  why  should  feet-washing  be  done,  if  done  at  all, 
under  the  seal  of  privacy?  Why  must  feet-washing 
be  kept  from  the  public  eye,  ratlier  than  baptism,  or 
the  partaking  of  the    symbols  of  the  body  and  blood 


MR.  QUINTER's   sixth    ADDRESS.  313 

of  Christ?  Instead  of  seeking  to  conceal  the  word 
of  tlie  Lord,  ^ve  must  seek  to  spread  it.  That  is  a 
beautiful  propliesy  of  the  worship  of  God  in  Isaiah, 
second  chapter,  second  verse  :  "And  it  shall  come  to 
pass  in  the  last  days  that  the  mountain  of  the  Lord's 
house  shall  be  established  in  the  top  of  the  mountains, 
and  shall  be  exalted  above  the  hills;  and  all  nations 
shall  flow  unto  it."  This  evidently  means  that  the 
Avorship  of  God  shall  become  so  conspicuous  as  to  be 
seen  by  all  nations;  so  conspicuous  that  all  nations 
should  forsake  all  other  objects  and  places  of  worship, 
being  so  much  impressed  with  the  excellency  and 
beauty  of  the  service  of  God,  and  come  to  this. 
The  Saviour  recommends  people  to  count  the  cost  be- 
fore they  assume  the  responsibilities  of  a  Christian 
life.  Hence,  must  know  the  whole.  Let  them  see 
the  Avhole,  even  feet- washing.  Paul,  in  his  noble  de- 
fense of  Christianity  before  a  royal  audience,  could 
say,  and  say  it,  too,  to  the  honor  of  Christianity, 
"  For  the  King  knoweth  of  these  things,  before  whom 
also  I  speak  freely;  for  I  am  persuaded  that  none  of 
these  things  are  hidden  from  him  ;  for  this  thino;  Avas 
not  done  in  a  corner."  (Acts,  xxvi:  26.)  Chris- 
tianity seeks  no  concealment.  The  tetter  she  is 
known,  the  higher  will  she  be  valued,  and  the  more 
loved.  Jesus  said  to  the  high  priests  who  inquired 
about  his  disciples  and  his  doctrine,  "I  spake  openly 
to  the  world:  lever  taught  in  the  synagogue,  and 
in  the  temple,  whither  the  Jews  always  resort  ; 
and  in  secret  have  I  said  nothing."  (John,  xviii : 
20.)  And  Jesus  commanded  his  disciples  :  "  What  I 
tell  you  in  darkness,  that  speak  ye  in  the  light;  and 
what  ye  hear  in  the  ear,  that  preach  ye  upon  the 
house-tops."  (Matthew,  X  :  27.)  Now,  feet-washing 
was  one  of  Christ's  commands  ;  but  m}^  friend  would 
have  you  believe  that  this  is  an  exception  to  the  other 
pommands  of  Christ;  for  he  contends  it   is  one  that 


314  DEBATE  ON  FEET- WASHING. 

is  not  to  be  observed  in  public — it  is  to  be  done  in  the 
family,  in  secret.  He  tries  to  show  that  it  is  a 
private  ordinance,  if  I  ma}^  so  express  it,  because  it 
was  first  performed  in  a  private  house.  Well,  was  not 
the  communion,  too,  instituted  in  a  private  house? 
more  private  than  feet-washing,  even  according  to  my 
friend's  theory,  for  the  communion  was  not  instituted 
in  the  midst  of  a  family,  but  in  a  private  chamber. 
\_Time  expired. 


[MR.   McCONNELL'S  SIXTH   ADDRESS.] 

*'In  a  private  chamber,  devoted  for  the  time  being 
to  a  public  service,"  is  my  answer  to  that  last  remark. 

My  friend  thinks  it  very  unreasonable  to  suppose 
that,  after  the  treachery  of  one  of  the  disciples 
had  been  foretold,  and  a  sio;n  given  indicatinor  who  was 
to  be  the  betrayer,  it  should  have  been  so  soon  for- 
gotten, and  another  sign  need  to  be  given  within  a 
couple  of  days  afterward.  Does  not  my  friend  know 
that  on  the  very  night  on  which  Christ  was  betrayed, 
and  the  Paschal  supper  eaten,  Jesus  foretold  to  Peter 
that  before  the  cock  should  crow  he  would  deny  him 
thrice,  and  yet  that  Peter,  in  the  few  hours  that  fol- 
lowed, forgot  all  about  it,  and  did  that  very  thing? 
And  if  Peter  could  forget  the  prophesy  that  he  him- 
self was  to  deny  his  Saviour,  is  it  so  impossible  that, 
amid  the  stirring  events  of  the  occasion,  he  and  the 
other  disciples  should  forget  who  was  to  betray  him  ? 
And  we  know^  that  there  were  two  diiforent  suppers, 
from  the  fact  that  different  conversations,  different 
signs,  different  acts,  are  recorded  as  occurring.  At 
each  supper,  the  Saviour  referred  to  his  betrayal. 
Whereupon,  Matthew  says  (xxvi :  22):  "  They  were 
exceeding  sorrowful,  and  began  every  one  of  them  to 
say  unto    him,  Lord,  is  it  I?''     John  says  (John,  xiii ; 


MR.    m'cONNKLL's    SIXTU    ADDRESS.  315 

22-25) :"  Tlicn  tlie  disciples  looked  one  on  another, 
doubtiniii;  of  whom  he  spake.  Now  tliere  was  leaning 
on  Jesus'  bosom  one  of  his  disciples,  whom  Jesus 
loved.  Simon  Peter  therefore  beckoned  to  him  that 
he  should  ask  who  it  should  be  of  whom  he  spake. 
He  then,  lying  on  Jesus'  breast,  said  unto  him.  Lord, 
■who  is  it?"  Matthew  says  (verse  23):  "And  he  an- 
swered and  said,  He  that  dippeth  Jiis  hand  with  me  in 
the  dish,  the  same  shall  betray  me."  John  says 
(verse  26):  "Jesus  answered.  He  to  whom  I  shall  give 
a  sop,  when  I  have  dipped  it.  And  when  he  had 
dipped  the  sop,  he  gave  it  to  Judas  Iscariot,  the  son 
of  Simon."  Here  are  two  very  different  conversa- 
tions, accompanied  by  acts  as  widely  different  as  pos- 
sible. It  is  plain  that  there  were  two  suppers  men- 
tioned by  these  evangelists;  at  the  one  recorded  in 
the  thirteenth  chapter  of  John,  Jesus  first  introduced 
the  subject;  Peter  beckoned  to  John  to  inquire  who 
was  to  be  the  betrayer;  John  inquired,  and  was  told 
that  it  was  he  to  whom  Jesus  shouhl  give  a  sop.  Two 
days  afterward  came  the  Paschal  supper,  recorded  by 
Matthew ;  again  the  Saviour  referred  to  the  fact  that 
there  was  a  traitor  among  them  ;  at  this  time,  not 
John  alone,  but  all  the  disciples  inquired,  "Lord,  is  it 
I?"  And  then  he  gave  another  sign,  "He  that  dip- 
peth with  me  in  the  dish."  After  the  first  supper, 
Satan  entered  into  Judas ;  he  spent  two  days  bar- 
gaining and  counseling  with  the  chief  priests;  then 
came  the  second  supper,  when  he  was  exposed  to 
them  all,  as  he  had  before  been  to  John  and  Peter. 

There  are  some  other  little  matters  that  I  will  refer 
to  right  here. 

My  friend  asks  where  we  get  the  formula  for  bap- 
tism ;  and  claims  that  it  can  not  be  a  church  ordi- 
nance, because  it  was  commanded  before  the  church 
was  organized.  Now,  tliere  is  a  very  pretty  specimen 
of  sophism  manifest  here,  though  I  do  not  charge  my 


316         DEBATE  ON  FEET- WASHING. 

friend  with  intending  to  play  the  sophist.  The  diifer- 
ence  is,  that  baptism  is  in  the  formuhi  of  tlie  conmns- 
sron  which  Christ  used  when  he  established  the  Church. 
My  friend  tried,  yesterch'iy,  to  get  pubhc  feet-washing 
in  there  too,  but  did  not  succeed.  The  reason,  then, 
why  one  is  a  public  ordinance,  while  the  other  is  not 
a  church  ordinance,  is  because  one  is  in  the  commis- 
sion under  which  the  church  was  established,  while 
the  other  is  not  in  the  commission.  The  church  had 
an  existence  in  promise  in  the  days  of  Adam,  and 
Abraham,  and  David;  it  had  an  existence  in  types, 
and  in  prophesy  :  but  it  had  no  existence  in  fact — 
mark  that  language,  in  fact — till  Christ  arose  from 
the  dead.  In  suf»port  of  this  position  I  submit,  first, 
that  Christ  is  the  foundation  of  his  cliurch,  the  ''  tried 
stone"  of  Isaiah,  xxviii :  16;  second,  this  stone  was 
not  laid  as  a  "sure  foundation"  until  it  had  been 
tried;  third,  the  trial  was  not  complete  until  Christ's 
resurrection  from  the  dead;  fourth,  the  church  was 
not  built,  nor  organized,  had  no  existence  in  fact, 
until  after  the  foundation  Avas  laid.  This  example 
(feet- washing)  occurred  before  Christ  arose  fiom  the 
dead,  hence  before  the  church  had  an  existence  in  fact; 
therefore,  it  was  not  performed  in  the  church.  The 
command  for  baptism  is  found  in  the  commission, 
which  was  given  to  the  apostles  after  Christ  arose 
from  the  dead.  But  I  wish  to  repeat  yet  again — bap- 
tism is  not  an  ordinance  in  tlie  cliurch.  xMy  friend 
claims  feet-washing  to  be  an  ordinance  i/i  the  church; 
we  do  not  claim  that  for  baptism.  If  public  feet-wash- 
ing were  found  in  the  commission,  where  baptism  is,  we 
would  let  it  stand  on  the  same  footing  with  baptism. 
My  brother  refers  to  the  communion,  or  Lord's  Sup- 
per, also,  as  having  originated  before  tlie  church  was 
established.  But  the  Lord's  Suj^por  is  repeatedly  re- 
ferred to  and  recogiiizeil  as  an  ordinance,  by  the  dis- 
ciples, after  the  organization  of  the  church.     "When 


MR.    M'cONNELL's    sixth    ADDRESS.  317 

my  brother  vrWl  show  me  where  feet-Avnshing,  in  the 
pu!)lic  assembly,  is  referred  to  as  being  a  religious 
ordinance,  enforced  by  such  commands  as  is  contained 
in  Paul's  First  Letter  to  the  Corinthians,  eleventh 
chapter,  which  we  so  fully  discussed  here  a  day  or 
two  ago,  enforced  by  numerous  recorded  examples 
elsewhere,  in  the  church,  as  the  Lord's  Supper  is,  then 
we  will  let  feet-washing  stand  on  the  same  foundation 
with  the  Lord's  Supper. 

My  friend  Quinter  has  argued  throughout  this  dis- 
cussion thatfeet-washinor  is  a  reliorious  rite,  and,  there- 
fore,  should  be  observed  in  the  public  congregation  of 
the  saints,  from, two  considerations:  first,  Christ  said 
to  the  discijjles  that  they  ought  to  wash  one  another's 
feet;  second,  Christ  also  said,  "If  ye  know  these 
things,  happy  are  ye  if  ye  do  them."  Now,  if  this 
reasoning  is  logical,  then  every  duty  is  a  religious 
rite,  and  ought  to  be  performed  in  the  public  con- 
gregation of  the  saints:  for  saints  certainly  "ought" 
to  perform  every  Christian  dut}^ ;  and  upon  all  who  do 
their  duty,  blessings  are  pronounced.  Then,  feeding 
the  hungry,  clothing  the  naked,  giving  alms  to  the 
poor,  training  up  children,  visiting  the  widows  and  the 
fatherless,  and  whatever  else  we  "ought"  to  do,  all, 
each,  are  religious  rites,  and  therefore  should  be  per- 
formed ill  the  public  assembly  of  the  church.  If  these 
are  not  religious  rites,  then  the  reasoning  of  my  friend 
is  illogical,  absurd,  and  altogether  unworthy  the  man  ; 
and  nothing  but  an  utterly  desperate  cause  could  have 
suggested  such  a  course  of  reasoning  to  his  mind. 

My  friend  has  sought  to  find  an  argument  for  feet- 
washing  in  the  commission,  and  failed.  Now,  let  us 
see  if  we  can  not  find  an  argument  against  feet-wash- 
ing from  that  same  sojurce.  The  Saviour  told  his  dis- 
ci[)les  to  teach  all  nations  "  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you."  But  the  apos- 
tles never  taught  feet- washing  in  the  public  assembly 


318  DEBATE    ON   FEET-WASHING. 

of  the  church ;  therefore,  that  is  not  one  of  the  things 
they  were  commanded  to  teach.  There  is  no  com- 
mand in  the  New  Testament  for  feet-washing  in  the 
public  assembly  of  the  church;  and  the  only  example 
of  feet-washing  on  record  in  the  New  Testament  oc- 
curred in  a  private  house,  in  Bethany,  fifty-five  days  be- 
fore the  church  of  Jesus  Christ  was  established  in  fact. 
I  will  again  call  your  attention  to  the  point  at  issue 
in  this  discussion.  It  is  not  whether  Christ  washed 
his  disciples'  feet;  it  is  not  whether  the  saints  ought 
^.to  wash- one  another's  feet ;  it  is  not  whether  the  wash- 
ing of  feet  should  be  perpetuated  to  the  end  of  time, 
till  the  Saviour's  second  coming.  But  the  real  issue 
is  this:  "Is  it  a  religious  rite  connected  with  divine 
worship  ?  Is  it  an  ordinance  or  ceremony  to  be  ob- 
served in  the  public  assembly  of  Christ's  Church .?"  I 
have  oifered  fairly  to  my  friend;  he  can  not  expect 
me  to  acknowledge  the  validity  and  necessity  of  what 
neither  Christ  nor  his  apostles  ever  did,  nor  com- 
manded ;  and  I  have  promised  my  friend  that  if  he 
will  give  me  either  the  teachings  or  the  example  of 
our  Saviour,  or  any  of  his  apostles,  in  favor  of  feet- 
washing  in  the  imhlic  assembly  of  the  church,  I  would 
yield  the  point,  and  adopt  his  practice.  He* has  thus 
far  failed,  most  emphatically  failed,  to  do  either,  as 
every  unprejudiced  person  in  this  audience  can  clearly 
see.  I  hope  that  he  will  even  yet  make  an  effort  in 
this  direction.  But  I  predict  that  he  will  fail ;  that  he 
can  not  find  anything  to  sustain  his  position  within 
the  lids  of  the  New  Testament.  We  have  been  pointed 
to  the  washing  of  the  hands  and  feet  under  the  Mosaic 
dispensation  ;  we  have  been  told  what  eminent  men 
have  said  in  relation  to  the  important  lessons  taught 
thereby;  we  have  been  informed  that  those  who  have 
practiced  it  have  been  spiritually  benefitted,  and  have 
felt  happy  after  it.  But  the  Mosaic  dispensation 
passed  away  nearly  two  thousand  years  ago,  and  all 


MR.  quinter's  seventh  address.  319 

its  multitudinous  forms  and  ceremonies  with  it;  find 
whiit  we  want  here  is  not  the  comments  of  men,  nor 
the  feelings  of  men,  but  the  commands  of  Christ,  the 
words  of  the  Living  God. 

I  believe  I  have  nothing  further  to  oifer  upon  the 
negative  of  this  proposition  until  something  else  shall 
be  developed  on  the  opposite  side.  Meantime,  I  want 
you  to  keep  your  minds  open  and  attentive  to  my 
brother  Quinter,  to  hear  any  proof  he  ma}''  yet  offer 
that  Christ,  or  any  of  his  apostles,  by  command  or  by 
example,  taught  the  washing  of  feet  in  the  public  as- 
se/nbli/  of  the  church.  That  is  the  only  point  at  issue; 
and  when  he  shall  have  done  that,  he  will  have  estab- 
lished his  position.  But  if  my  brother  does  not  now 
produce  any  such  command  or  example,  we  may  rea- 
sonably conclude  that  it  is  not  to  be  found — that  there 
is  nowhere  any  scriptural  authority  for  the  practice 
he  adopts  and  advocates.     [^Tinie  expired. 


[MR.  QUINTER'S   SEVENTH  ADDRESS.] 

Friendly  Moderators — Notwithstanding  my  friend 
appears  perfectly  satisfied  that  he  has  utterly  demol- 
ished all  the  arguments  I  have  heretofore  presented, 
and  that  my  armory  is  now  completely  exhausted,  yet 
I  feel  confident  of  the  correctness  of  the  general  posi- 
tion I  have  heretofore  presented. 

I  want  to  make  one  more  final  remark  relative  to 
those  suppers,  about  which  so  much  has  already  been 
said.  His  position  requires  that  the  disciples,  in  the 
course  of  a  couple  of  days,  should  entirely  forget 
who  of  their  number  was  to  be  the  betrayer  of  their 
Master,  and  render  a  second  exposition  necessary. 
He  endeavored  to  make  this  appear  plausible  from 
the  fact  that  Peter  had  forgotten  that  he  denied  his 
Master.     But   Peter  did  not   forget.     In  his  case  it 


320  DEBATE  ON   FEET-WASHING. 

Tras  not  a  lapse  of  memory,  but  of  conscience.  He 
did  not  forget,  but  he  did  not  feel  bis  guilt  in  the 
matter  with  the  poignant  grief,  tlie  overwhelming 
sorrow,  that  resulted  when  his  Lord  cast  his  eye 
upon  him.  Then  the  great  guilt  of  his  deed  appeared 
before  him  in  all  its  dark  colors,  in  all  its  deep 
criminality.  That  the  disciples  should  forget,  in  two 
days,  who  w^as  to  be  the  betrayer  of  their  Lord,  is 
simply  impossible  ;  therefore  his  argument  in  behalf 
of  two  suppers,  at  each  of  wdiich  Judas  Avas  pointed 
out  as  being  the  betrayer,  is  unsatisfactory  and  inad- 
missible ;  and  after  that,  merely  calling  your  attention 
to  it,  I  will  let  this  whole  matter  pass. 

My  friend  contends  that  baptism  is  in  the  com- 
mission, and  was  therein  handed  over  by  the  Saviour 
to  his  disciples.  We  contend  that  feet-washing  is  in 
the  commission,  and  was  likewise  handed  over  by  the 
Saviour  to  his  disciples:  "  Teaching  them  to  observe 
all  tilings  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you."  My 
friend  adds  the  words  "  to  teach,"  to  the  end  of  the 
commission  ;  but  this  is  an  unwarrantable  interpola- 
tion. I  am  not  ready  to  accept  it.  I  prefer  to  take 
my  Lord's  language  as  I  find  it.  But  this  makes  not 
much  difference,  after  all  ;  for  my  friend  acknowl- 
edojes  that  feet-washinoj  is  in  the  commission. 

Again,  Paul,  in  writing  to  Timothy,  as  a  minister 
in  the  church,  referring  to  certain  duties  connected 
with  the  church,  said  that  widows,  in  order  to  be 
entitled  to  church  privileges,  must,  among  other  things, 
have  washed  the  saints'  feet.  Now,  if  this  washing 
of  the  saints'  feet  was  not  a  practice  in  the  church, 
how  came  Paul  by  that  idea?  lie  taught  it  to 
Timothy,  and  something  must  have  conveyed  to  Paul's 
mind  the  idea  that  this  washing  of  the  saints'  feet  was 
a  prerequisite  to  entitle  a  widow  to  favc»rs  from  the 
church.     If  feet-washing    had    not    been  taught  and 


MR.    QUrXTKR's    SKVFNTH    ADDRRS3.  32 1 

practiced  in  the  church    before,  how   came    Paul    to 
ispoak  of  it  ? 

Now,  a  word  or  two  in  reference  to  the  public  char- 
itr.ter  of  this  ordinance.  My  friend  talks  about  th'^ 
impropriety  of  this,  that,  and  the  other,  being  per- 
lonned  in  public — visiting  the  sick,  feeding  tli^ 
Imni^ry,  clothing  the  naked,  etc.  Now,  I  do  not 
tliink  lieouo;]it  to  connect  things  together  in  that  wav. 
My  friend  acknowledges  that  feet-washing  is  a  com- 
mand of  the  Saviour's;  he  declares  he  would  do  it  in 
honor  of  his  Lord.  But  he  wants  it  done  privately. 
Very  well ;  now,  if  it  honors  the  Lord  to  wash  feet  in 
private,  if  it  can  do  ourselves  and  one  another  good 
to  wash  one  another's  feet  in  a  private  way,  I  main- 
tain that  it  will  do  at  least  as  much  good,  and  that  it 
will  honor  the  Lord  still  more,  to  do  it  in  the  public 
assembly,  and  before  the  public  eye.  If  I  had  time, 
I  should  be  glad  to  dwell  upon  the  effects  of  feet- 
washing,  both  upon  those  who  engage  in  it,  and  upon 
the  public  who  observe  it,  We  know  there  are  dif- 
ferent ways  by  which  truth  is  conveyed  to  the  mind  ; 
but  ordinarily  it  comes  through  the  senses  of  sight  or 
hearing.  How  often,  when  my  friend,  and  his  brethren, 
or  others  of  us,  have  been  followed  by  the  multi- 
tude down  to  the  margin  of  some  silver  stream  that 
flowed  along  through  the  beautiful  grove,  where,  bap- 
tizing in  the  holy  name  of  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,  a  soul  was  given  back  to  God — under 
such  circumstances,  how  often  has  the  eye  been  moist- 
ened, the  heart  made  tender,  and  good  resolutions 
been  formed,  that  have  led  the  spectator  to  go  and  do 
likewise.  So,  in  attending  to  the  solemn  communion 
ceremonies,  how  impressive  and  affecting  does  the 
scene  appear  !  So  with  regard  to  feet-washing.  How 
many  times  have  I  heard  the  believer  who  had  par- 
ticipated in  feet-washing,  exclaim,  "  Oh,  how  my  soul 
was  blessed  in  the  performance  of  this  beautiful  ordi- 
21 


822  DEBATE  ON  FEET- WASHING. 

nance  !'^  How  many  have  we  met  in  our  travels, 
whose  minds  were  first  awakened  and  impressed  by 
observins  the  brethern  wash  one  another's  feet. 
Then  we  can  see  no  reason  why  this  should  be  kept 
private,  hidden  from  the  public  eye.  If  it  is  calcu- 
lated to  honor  the  Lord,  as  my  friend  deems  it  may 
be,  then  why  insist  that  it  be  done  in  the  private 
chamber,  where  nobody  can  see  it  or  know  anything 
about  it. 

And  now,  brethren  and  friends,  we  leave  the  subject 
with  you.  We  are  gratified  at  the  interest  and 
solemnity  that  has  accompanied  this  discussion,  from 
the  beginning  to  the  end.  For  this  you  have  our 
thanks,  and  our  prayers  for  God's  blessing  upon  your 
souls.  And  to  you,  kind  Moderators,  we  are  thank- 
ful for  your  attention,  and  for  the  performance  of 
your  duties  so  faithfully  as  you  have  performed  them. 


[MR.  McCONNELL'S  SEVENTH  ADDRESS.] 

Friendly  Moderators — I  regret  that  my  closing 
time  is  to  be  so  limited.  I  had  anticipated  that  the 
discussion  would  continue  during  the  afternoon,  ac- 
cording to  the  plan  at  first  decided  upon.  Many 
things,  therefore,  that  I  had  intended  to  say  in  connec- 
tion with  this  question,  must  now  be  omitted.  In  the 
brief  time  alotted  to  me,  I  will  notice  but  one  or  two 
of  the  more  prominent  points  made  by  my  brother  in 
his  last  speech. 

He  says,  if  it  honors  the  Lord  to  wash  feet  in  the 
private  family,  it  must  honor  him  more  to  wash  feot 
in  public — as  a  church  ordinance.  Well,  it  may — or 
it  may  not.  It  does  not  follow  that  every  thing  that 
honors  the  Lord  when  done  in  the  private  family, 
honors  him  when  done  in  the  church.  The  Lord  is 
honored   in   the   family   wlieu   the   Christian    mother 


MR.    m'cONNELL'S   seventh   ADDRESS.  323 

brings  up  her  child  in  accordance  with  his  law.  The 
Lord  is  honored  in  the  family  when  I  give  the  beggar 
a  loaf  of  bread,  or  garments  to  cover  his  nakedness. 
I  am  not  prepared  to  admit  that  these  acts  would 
honor  the  Lord  still  more  if  done  in  the  public  assem- 
bly of  the  church. 

My  friend  draws  an  argument  from  the  effects  of 
feet-washing  upon  those  who  participate,  and  also 
upon  those  who  are  spectators.  He  asserts,  from  his 
own  experience,  that  God  has  answered  and  blessed 
it  to  the  benefit  of  both.  Well,  God  has  owned  and 
blessed  the  eucharist  to  the  benefit  of  many  a  soul; 
and  therefore,  arguing  as  my  brother  argues,  the  pa- 
pist exclaims,  "  We  will  make  this  as  public  as  pos- 
sible;  we  will  exalt  the  sacred  emblems,  and  carry 
them  on  high  along  the  street."  My  friend  says  God 
has  owned  and  blessed  feet-washing  ;  so  he  would  ex- 
alt that  to  the  highest  and  most  public  position. 

Being  upon  the  negative  of  this  proposition,  all 
that  could  be  rightfully  required  of  me  was  to  answer 
whatever  arguments  my  brother  might  produce.  I 
think  I  have  done  so.  And  besides  this,  I  have  of- 
fered the  following  arguments  against  the  practice  of 
washing  the  feet  as  an  ordinance,  or  religious  rite, 
in  the  public  assembly  of  the  church : 

1.  Feet-washing  obtained  as  a  custom  in  the  world 
from  the  days  of  Abraham,  until  Christ :  as  shown, 
Genesis,  xviii :  4;  xix :  2;  xxiv :  32;  xliii:  24, 
Judges,  xix  :  2  ;  II  Sam.,  xi :   18  ;  Luke,  vii :  36-46. 

2.  Feet-washing  was  practiced,  not  as  an  ordi- 
nance, or  in  any  public  assembly,  but  in  the  family 
circle,  as  a  matter  of  comfort  and  convenience;  this 
was  shown  by  the  same  Scriptures. 

3.  It  was  generally  done  in  the  evening :  see  same 
Scriptures. 

4.  It  was  sometimes  done  by  the  servant  to  a  guest 
in  his  master's  family:  Bee  I  Sam.,  xxv :  41. 


324  DEBATE    ON    FEET-WASHING. 

5.  That  the  case  relied  upon  by  all  the  advocates  of 
feet-Avashing  as  a  religious  rite,  related  in  the  thirteenth 
chapter  of  John,  conforms  to  the  custom  as  found  in  the 
world,  in  all  points  except  one — viz  :  instead  of  the 
servant  washing  the  feet,  Christ,  the  Master,  washed 
the  feet  of  his  disciples.  For  it  was  shown  that  this 
Avas  not  at  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  but  two  days 
before  (John  xiii  :  1 ) ;  that  it  was  at  Bethany,  in  the 
house  of  Simon  the  leper  (Matthew,  xxvi :  6  and  14; 
Mark,  xiv  :  1  and  11.)  Therefore  it  was  shown  that 
it  contains  no  example  for  public  feet-washing. 

6.  I  examined  the  case  of  feet-washing  referred  to 
in  Paul's  First  Letter  to  Timothy,  fifth  chapter,  tenth 
verse.  And  here  we  found  the  washing  of  the  saints' 
feet  associated  with,  and  enumerated  among,  not  reli- 
gious rites,  hut  private  family  duties ;  hence  we  find 
here  no  authority  for  public  feet-washing.  The  text  has 
no  bearing  whatever  in  favor  of  his  position,  and 
surely  strongly  corroborates  mine. 

7.  In  the  commission  we  found  the  apostles  sent 
forth  by  Christ  among  all  nations,  with  instructions 
to  teach  whatsoever  he  had  commanded  them  ;  but  as 
Christ  had  not  commanded  the  washing  of  feet  in  the 
public  assembly  of  his  church,  therefore  the  commis- 
sion contains  no  authority  for  public  feet-washing. 

8.  I  referred  you  to  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Acts, 
where  Paul  declared  to  the  elders  of  the  church  at 
Ephesus,  that  "  he  had  not  shunned  to  declare  unto 
them  the  whole  counsel  of  God,  and  had  kept  back  no- 
thing that  was  profitable  to  them;  but  the  apostle  did 
not  teach  them  to  wash  feet  in  the  public  assembly  of 
the  church  ;  therefore  the  washing  of  feet  in  the  public 
assembly  of  the  church  is  not  only  without  authority, 
but  is  not  profitable. 

9.  I  showed  to  you  that  in  the  holy  place  of  the  Jew- 
ish tabernacle,  the  type  of  the  Christian  church,  there 
"were  no  washings  with  water  ;  and  as  type  and  anti- 


MR.  m'conxell's  seventh  address.         325 

type  must  agree,  tiiereforc  there  arc  no  wasliings  with 
water  in  the  public  services  of  the  saints  in  the  church 
of  God. 

10.  Tlie  word  relied  upon  to  enforce  feet-washing 
is  o/;//^?7<?/f;,  translated  "ought,"  in  John,  xiii  :  14: 
''  Ye  also  ought  to  wash  one  another's  feet :  "  I  read 
to  you  the  definition  of  this  word  according  to  Green- 
field, who  explained  it  as  referring  to  what  the  cir- 
cumstances of  time,  place,  persons,  etc.,  rendered 
proper ;  the  circumstances  of  time,  place,  persons, 
etc.,  in  the  public  assembly  of  the  church,  render  feet- 
washing  improper ;  therefore,  it  ought  not  to  be  done 
in  the  public  assembly  of  the  church. 

11.  Finally,  and  conclusively,  there  is  no  com- 
mand for  such  a  practice  ;  and  the  only  example  re- 
lied upon  to  prove  it,  was  in  a  private  family,  in 
Bethany,  fifty-five  days  before  the  church  of  Christ 
was  established  in  fact. 

So  much  for  the  points  discussed  yesterday.  The 
thoughts  offered  this  morning  we  will  not  attempt  to 
recapitulate  ;  they  are  fresh  in  your  memories.  A 
word  or  two  in  conclusion.  We  now  close  the  dis- 
cussion in  which  we  have  been  engaged  for  nearly  a 
week  :  and  I  must  express  my  gratification  at  the 
manner  in  which  it  has  been  conducted.  I  have  been 
pleased  with  the  decorum  and  interest  manifested  by 
the  audience.  And  I  have  been  exceedingly  pleased 
with  the  courteous  and  gentlemanly  deportment  of  my 
brother,  who  has  been  my  opponent  in  this  discus- 
sion ;  it  has  been,  so  far  as  all  common  and  Christian 
courtesy  is  concerned,  such  as  to  render  this  one  of 
the  most  pleasant  meetings  in  which  I  have  ever  par- 
ticipated :  but  one  thing  could  please  me  better  ;  and 
that  would  be,  to  meet  him  under  circumstances  where 
we  were  not  in  opposition  to  each  other.  I  hope  and 
believe,  that  both  my  friend  and  myself  have  discussed 
this  question,  not  for  the  purpose  of  achieving  a^  vie- 


326         DEBATE  ON  FEET- WASHING. 

tory,  or  exhibiting  our  abilities  in  the  encounter  of 
opposing  arguments,  but  from  a  sincere  love  of  the 
truth,  and  desire  to  understand  the  will  of  God.  Our 
aim  and  purpose  has  been,  to  lead  our  fellow-men 
back  to  primitive  Christianity ;  away  from  the  canons, 
and  councils,  and  decrees,  and  creeds,  and  confes- 
sions of  faith,  born  of  modern  times — away  from  the 
traditions  and  opinions  of  men,  to  the  tea,chings  of 
Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles.  We  want  to  build  our 
hope  of  salvation,  not  upon  phantoms  of  the  imagina- 
tion, but  upon  the  precious  promises  of  the  blessed 
Saviour.  Let  us  all  seek  the  truth,  with  the  best 
light  we  have ;  the  light  which  emanates  from  tJiis 
sacred  volume,  the  record  of  the  life  and  teachings  of 
our  blessed  Redeemer.  Let  us  obey  his  command, 
follow  his  example,  and  confide  in  his  word. 


Mr.  Quinter  thinks  that  the  note  added  (page  222) 
to  Mr.  McConnelJ's  Address,  may  be  construed  to  im- 
ply that  he  had  no  further  arguTnent>^  to  offer,  and, 
therefore.  Avould  do  him  injustice.  The  supplementary 
matter  added,  he  claims,  would  disprove  this  inference. 
Mr.  Q.  did  not  see  the  note  until  after  the  book  was 
printed,  a: id  claims  this  explanation. 

PUBLISHER. 


CHRISTIAN  HYMN-BOOK. 

SMALL  EDITION.    (Pearl,  48mo.) 

Arabesquo $  .05        Per  dozen...?  C.(«) 

"           ,  gilt  back  and  biiruisliod  edge...     .75  "  ...  (•..SO  I 

"           ,  gilt  edge 90  *•  ...  8.10| 

Imitation  Turkey,  gilt  edge 1.10  "  ...  Ki.oo  | 

Tuikt-y  Morocco,  gilt  edge 1.35  "  ...  12.00 

Tnrkt-y,  with  gilt  clasp 2.00  "  ...  I'J.OO 

MEDIUM  EDITION.    (Brevier,  24mo.) 

Sliffp  Binding S  .90  Per  dozen. ..S  8.10 

Arabesque 1.10  "  ...  9. HO 

*'          ,  gilt  back  and  buruibhcd  edge...  1.25  "  ...  11.25 

"           ,  gilt  edge 1.40  "  ...  12.00 

Imitation  Tuikey,  gilt  edge l.CO  "  ...  11.40 

Turkey  Morocco,  gilt  edge 2.00  "  ...  18.00 

Turkey,  with  gilt  clasp 2.75  ♦'  ...  24.75 

Finer  Binding,  from  84  to  §8,  each. 

LARGE  EDITION.    (Pica,  12mo.) 

Sheep  Binding $2.00        Per  dozen. ..§18. 00 

Arabesque 2.60  "         ...    22.50 

Turkey 4.00  "         ...    bG.OO 

B'-S'Sont  by  mail,  prf.p.aid,  at  the  retail  price. 

AVhen  ordered  by  the  dozen,  add  for  postage : — SOc.  for  small,  §1.40 
for  medium,  and  Sf3.00  for  largo. 

The  following  are  a  few  of  a  hirge  number  of  similar  commencla- 
tions  of  the  new  Hymn-Book  : 

Prest.  R.  Millig.in— "I  regard  it  as  much  the  best  compilation  extant." 
E:der  P.  S.  Fall—"  I  take  pleasure  in  recommending  it  to  our  brethren  gen- 
erally." [lences  are  manifest." 
Prof.  Jno.  Aug.  Williams— "I  acknowledge  its  superior  merits— it  excel- 
Elder  I).ivid  Walk—"  Wo  think  it  decidedly  the  host  lljran  Book  extant." 
Ur.  W.  II.  Ilopson— "  I  authorize  to  express  my  approval  of  the  book  in  any 
terms  you  please."  [likely  to  kave." 
Elder  Thos.  Munnell— "The  best  book,  by  far,  we  have  ever  bad,  or  are 
Elder  J.  S.  Sweeney—*'  The  best  Hymn  Book  I  ever  saw." 
Dr.  L.  L.  Pinkerton— "  I  consider  it  in  all  respects  unexceptionable." 
Silas  W.  Leonard— "II  fully  meets  our  present  wants.    I  most  heartily 

commend  it." 
Elder  W.  A.  Belding— "I  wish  to  express  my  admiration  fur  the  new  book." 
Elder  W.  C.  Rogers — "  Very  much  superior  to  any  collection  of  Ilymaa." 
Elder  C.ilvin  Rcaeoner— "  I  eordiallv  express  my  approbation  of  the  work." 
Elder  W.  C.  Ricketts- "The  best  book  of  the  kind  I  have  met  with." 
Prof.  Richardson— "An  admirable  collection  of  Hymns,  superior  to  any 

known  to  me." 
Prof  C.  r,.  Loos — "  In  every  respect  one  of  the  best  in  the  English  language." 
Prof.  J.  W.  McGarvey— "  I'have  no  doubt  it  is  the  best  Uymn  Book  extant." 
Elder  Wm.  Baxter— "This  is  high  praise,"  (referring  to  Br.  McGarvey's 

words,  I  "  but  I  believe  to  be  true." 
Elder  .las.  Challen— "The  best  Hymn  Book  I  have  ever  seen." 
Prof.  O.  T.  Carpenter—"  We  consider  it  emphatically  the  work  of  psalmody 

for  the  brethren." 
Elder  A.  D.  F.  Fillmore—"  Let  it  be  adopted  by  the  brethren  overy-where." 


SMALL  BOOKS  IN  NEAT  PAPER  COVERS. 


First  Principles :  or^  The  Elements  of  the  Gospel, 

Analyzed  and  Discussed  in  Letters  to  an  Inquirer.     By 
Isaac  Errett.     159  pp.     15  cents.    $1  50  per  dozen.  i 

A  Brief  Treatise  on  Prayer.  I 

By  Prest.  R.  Milligan.     10  cents.    $1  per  dozen.    On  fine  | 
paper,  in  fine  cloth,  50  cents.  i 

Principles  and  Objects  of  the  Religions  Reforma- 
tion. 
As  plead  by  A.  Campbell  and  others.     By  R.  Richardson. 
10  cents.    $1  per  dozen. 

Salvation  from  Sin: 
Or,  what  must  I  do  to  be  Saved  ?    By  Dr.  J.  P.  Walsh. 
10  cents.    $1  per  dozen. 

"Life  and  Death." 
By  A.  Campbell.     A  refutation  of  Materialism  and  Mod- 
ern Sadduceeism.     10  cents.    $1  per  dozen. 
Christian  Experience : 
Or,  Sincerity  Seeking  the  Way  to  Heaven.     A  Dialogue. 
10  cents.    $1  per  dozen. 

The  Union  Movement. 
A  Dialogue,  showing  the  only  possible  ground  of  Christian 
Union.     10  cents.     $^1  per  dozen. 

True  Method  of  Searching  the  Scriptures. 
By  President  Fanning.     Paper,  15  cents  ;  cloth,  30  cents. 
McLean  on  the  Commission  of  Christ  and  his  Apos- 
tles. 
Paper,  SO  cents.     Same  by  mail. 

Six  Letters  to  a  Skeptic. 
By  Alexander  Campbell.     57  pp.     Price,  6  cents. 

Spiritualism  Self-condemned. 
By  Isaac  Errett.    A  very  valuable  tract,  with  neat  cover. 
Price,  6  cents. 

All  on  this  page  in  paper  covers,  by  mail,  $1  25. 


A  Commentary  on  Acts 

Of  Apostles,  with  a  revised  versiou  of  the  text.  By  J.  \V. 
MeGuivey.    Price, $1.50.    fciame by  mail. 

The  Organon  of  Scripture, 

Or  the  Inductive  Metliod  of  Biblical  Interpretation.  By 
J.  S.  Lamar.  In  tliis  volume  a  very  important  subjeet  is 
discussed  with  great  ability.  Profound  in  thought,  yet  the 
work  is  admirably  adapted  to  the  capacity  of  all  readers, 
and  all  should  read  it.    Price,  by  mail,  i^l.-lO. 

Bible  Dictionary. 

For  general  use  in  the  study  of  the  Scriptures;  with  250 
engravings,  5  maps,  and  chronological  and  other  tables. 
o3i  pages,  large  12mo. ;  will  be  sold*for  Sl.oO;  postage,  28  cents. 
A  remarkably  valuable  work  for  the  price. 

The  Western  Christian  Preacher. 

A  book  of  original  Sermons  and  Discourses  by  eminent 
Christian  preachers.  Edited  by  Elder  J.  M.  MfAhes.  Price, 
cloth,  S2.    Same  by  mail. 

The  New  Testament. 

Translated  from  the  original  Greek  by  H.  T.  Anderson. 
Arabesque,  S2.75 ;  cloth,  ?2.50 ;  small  edition,  50  cents. 

Cruden's  Concordance  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures. 

By  which  any  verse  in  the  Bible  may  be  readily  found  by 
looking  for  any  material  word  in  the  verse.  To  which  i's 
added  the  significations  of  the  principal  words.  A  Concord- 
ance to  the  proper  names  of  the  Bible  and  their  meaning  in 
the  original.    Price,  $2 ;  postage,  40  cents. 

Mosheim*s  Church  History. 

806  quarto  pages ;  sheep  binding.    So. 

Clark's  Commentary. 

Complete.    4  vols.    §18. 

Clark's  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament. 

2voLs.    S9. 


WORKS  OF  A.  campbsl: 


The  Christian  Baptist. 

This  important  work  can  not  be  superseded  by  any  subse- 
quent publications.  Seven  volumes  in  one,  containing  G70 
double-columned  pages.  Price,  in  cloth,  $3;  arabasque, 
^  50;  by  mail,  2o  cents  extra. 

The  Christian  System. 

In  reference  to  the  Union  of  Christians  and  the  restoration 
of  Primitive  Christianity.  By  A.  Campbell.  Price,  by  mail, 
$1  40. 

Christian  Baptism. 

with  its  Antecedents  and  Consequents.  By  Alexander 
Ca,rupbell.    Price,  ^1  40;  same  by  mail. 

Campbell  and  Purcell's  Debate. 

On  Roman  Catholicism.  A  new  edition  of  this  very  able 
discussion  is  ready.    Price,  SI  40  ;  same  by  mail. 

Campbell  and  Owen's  Debate. 

On  all  the  Systems  of  Skepticism,  Ancient  and  Modern. 
Complete  in  one  volume.  This  will  always  remain  a  leading 
work  on  the  Evidences  of  Christianity.  Price,  §1  50;  same 
by  mail. 

Familiar  Lectures  on  the  Pentateuch. 

Delivered  before  the  Morning  Class  of  Bethany  College 
during  the  Session  of  18-59-60,  by  Alexander  Cami)bcll :  also 
short  extracts  from  his  sermons  during  the  same  session  ;  to 
which  is  prefixed  a  sketch  of  the  life  of  President  Campbell, 
with  a  fine  steel  portrait.  Edited  by  W.  T.  Moore.  Price, 
SI  75;  same  by  mail. 

H.  S.  BOSWORTH,  Publisher, 

10,3  Main  St.,  Chichmati. 


-7^ 


